Report 

OP  THE 

Special  Committee  of  the  Council 

Appointed  to 

Investigate  and  Report 

ON  THE 

Improvement 

OF  THE 

Lower  Cuyahoga  River 


CLEVELAND,  OHIO  -  C;tv 
July,  1913 


XOi'S> 


SPECIAL  RIVER  AND  HARBOR  COMMITTEE 


Joseph  Manning  Wm.  J.  Horrigan 

Jas.  J.  McGinty  Wm.  B.  Woods 

Wm.  Stolte 


MAYOR 

Newton  D.  Baker 


DIRECTOR  OF  PUBLIC  SERVICE 

Wm.  J.  Springborn 


CHIEF  ENGINEER 

Robert  Hoffmann 


ASSISTANT  ENGINEER  IN  CHARGE  OF 
RIVER  AND  HARBOR  DEPARTMENT 

Edgar  B.  Thomas 


CLEVELAND  RIVER  AND  HARBOR  COMMISSION 

James  H.  Cassidy,  Chairman 
Harry  C.  Gahn,  Secretary 
Walter  P.  Rice 

Edwin  S.  Griffiths 

Augustus  Mordecal 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

L/etter  submitting  offer  of  co-operation .  7 

Council  Resolution  pledging  co-operation . .  9 

Upper  Cu3’ahoga  River  being  improved .  11 

Winding  Basins  in  Upper  River . . .  11 

Description  of  lower  river  channel .  12 

I/arge  vessels  cannot  navigate  lower  channel . .  12 

Slips  on  lower  river . . .  12 

Commerce  on  upper  and  lower  river . . .  13 

Transfer  of  bulk  freight  in  upper  river . . .  13 

Transfer  of  bulk  freight  on  lake  front .  14 

Limited  supply  of  iron  and  steel  in  Cleveland  district .  14 

City  benefits  by  proposed  improvement  .  15 

West  3rd  Street  and  street  car  service  affected .  15 

Reduction  in  transportation  and  terminal  charges .  16 

About  one-  half  of  Great  Lake  vessels  excluded  from  upper  Cuyahoga 

river .  16 

All  Great  Lake  vessels  could  navigate  Cuyahoga  river  in  1900 .  16 

Probable  upper  river  tonnage .  17 

Carrying  charges  on  ton  of  iron  ore .  17 

Probable  differential  on  upper  river  commerce .  18 

Importance  of  port  of  Cleveland .  18 

Cuyahoga  river  flood  discharge .  19 

Probable  future  floods .  19 

Flood  damage . 20 

City  has  improved  upper  river  and  channel  below  Superior  Viaduct  20 

Flood  prevention  important .  21 

Brief  description  of  proposed  improvement .  21 

Cost  of  improvement  to  City  and  Federal  Government .  22 

Cost  based  on  annual  tonnage . 22-36 

Federal  expenditure  on  salt  water  harbors 


22-34 


CONTENTS—  ( Continued ) 

Page 

Federal  expenditure  on  river  projects . . . 22-35 

Federal  expenditure  on  Great  Eake  improvements . . 22-36 

'Total  Federal  expenditure  on  river  and  harbor  improvements .  22 

Total  commerce  in  1911 . . .  . .  22 

City’s  expenditure  on  Cuyahoga  river  improvements . .23-37-38 

Federal  expenditure  on  Cleveland  harbor . 23-36 

Summary  of  benefits . 23 

Committee’s  recommendation . . 24 

Tabular  statement  No.  1  showing  data  pertaining  to  bends  in  Cuya¬ 
hoga  river .  25 

Tabular  Statement  No.  2  showing  assembling  charges  on  pig  iron ....  26 

Tabular  Statement  No.  3  showing  length  and  capacity  of  freight  vessels  27 

Tabular  Statement  No.  4  showing  predominance  of  larger  size  vessels  33 

Tabular  Statement  No.  5  showing  Government  expenditure  on  salt 

water  harbors . . .  34 

Tabular  Statement  No.  6  showing  Government  expenditure  on  river 

projects . . . 35 

Tabular  Statement  No.  7  showing  Government  expenditure  on  Great 

Eake  improvements .  36 

Tabular  Statement  No.  8  showing  cost  of  Cuyahoga  river  dredging..,,  37 

Tabular  Statement  No.  9  showing  cost  of  Cuyahoga  river  improvements  38 

Tabular  Statement  No.  10  showing  size  of  vessels  and  cargoes  and 

transportation  and  transfer  charges .  39 

APPENDIXES 

Photographs  of  Collision  Bend  during  and  after  flood. 

Photographs  of  upper  valley  during  and  after  flood. 

Map  of  Cuyahoga  River. 


CLEVELAND 
Newton  D.  Baker,  Mayor 


W.  J.  Murphy,  secretary 


July  24th,  1913. 

Maj.  Chas.  S.  Bromwell, 

U.  S.  Engineer, 

Cleveland,  Ohio. 

Dear  Sir: — 

I  am  submitting  to  you  herewith  a  printed  copy  of  a  report  ol 
the  Special  Committee  of  the  Council  of  the  City  of  Cleveland  on 
the  subject  of  the  improvement  of  the  lower  Cuyahoga  River  in  the 
City  of  Cleveland,  filed  with  the  Council  on  June  30th,  1913. 

I  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  Resolution  File  No.  30151, 
adopted  by  the  Council  of  the  City  of  Cleveland  on  July  14th,  1913 
by  a  unanimous  vote,  which  you  will  find  printed  with  the  afore¬ 
said  report.  The  terms  of  this  Resolution  authorize  and  direct 
me  to  submit  to  the  Federal  Authorities  an  offer  of  co-operation 
on  the  part  of  the  City  of  Cleveland  with  the  United  States  Gov¬ 
ernment  in  the  improvement  of  the  lower  Cuyahoga  River  as 
described  in  the  report. 

It  is  a  great  pelasure  for  me  to  comply  with  this  direction,  for 
the  improvement  is  of  vital  importance,  not  only  in  the  prevention 
of  floods  in  the  locality  of  the  improvement,  but  also  to  a  proper 
accessibility  to  the  Great  Lakes  of  a  large  and  constantly  increas¬ 
ing  volume  of  commerce  through  the  Cuyahoga  River  to  the  rap¬ 
idly  growing  manufacturing  section  in  the  upper  Cuyahoga 
Valley.  On  behalf  of  the  City  of  Cleveland,  .  I,  therefore, 
offer  to  the  United  States  Government,  through  you,  the  co-opera¬ 
tion  of  the  City  of  Cleveland  in  the  making  of  this  improvement 
to  the  extent  of  paying  fifty  per  cent  of  the  cost  thereof. 

Yours  very  truly, 

Newton  D.  Baker,  Mayor. 


COUNCIL  RESOLUTION. 

File  No.  30151. 


Mr.  Menning — Whereas,  a  survey  of  the  Cuyahoga  River  and 
an  estimate  of  the  cost  of  its  improvement  from  Lake  Erie  to  a 
more  southerly  connection  with  the  Ohio  Canal  was  authorized  by 
Congress  February  27,  1911,  which  authorization  also  included  the 
consideration  and  report  on  any  proposal  to  co-operate  in  the  mak¬ 
ing  of  this  improvement  by  the  locality  affected,  and 

Whereas,  the  United  States  engineer  officer  in  charge  of  the 
Cleveland  district  has  made  this  survey  and  submitted  a  report, 
which  is  now  in  the  hands  of  the  Board  of  Engineers  of  Rivers 
and  Harbors  at  Washington,  and 

Whereas,  the  Cleveland  River  and  Harbor  Commission  after 
several  months’  investigation  and  study  submitted  to  this  council  on 
January  18,  1913,  a  report  recommending  the  improvement  of  the 
Cuyahoga  River  in  accordance  with  route  No.  1,  which  report 
also  states  that  in  the  interests  of  navigation  the  improvement  is 
necessary  and  the  estimated  expenditure  is  fully  justified,  and 

Whereas,  this  council  with  a  view  of  determining  the  proper 
division  of  the  expense  involved,  appointed  a  special  committee  on 
March  3,  1913,  to  investigate  and  gather  such  information  as  may 
be  available  to  show  what  benefits  would  be  derived  from  the 
improvement  of  the  lower  Cuyahoga  River,  first,  by  the  City  of 
Cleveland,  and  second,  by  the  federal  government,  and 

Whereas,  on  June  30,  the  special  committee  submitted  a  report 
recommending  that  this  council  assure  the  federal  government  of 
the  city’s  willingness  to  co-operate  to  the  extent  of  50  per  cent  ol 
the  cost  of  the  improvement  of  the  lower  Cuyahoga  River  below  the 
Cincinnati  slip  in  accordance  with  route  No.  1,  as  recommended  by 
the  river  and  harbor  commission,  and 

Whereas,  both  the  river  and  harbor  commission  and  the  special 
committee  express  the  opinion  that  the  cost  of  improving  the  lower 
Cuyahoga  River  is  fully  justified,  now,  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this  council  that  this  improve¬ 
ment  should  be  completed  as  speedily  as  possible  and  that  the  city 
of  Cleveland  hereby  expresses  its  willingness  to  co-operate  with 

9 


the  federal  government  in  the  making  of  this  improvement  to  the 
extent  of  50  per  cent  of  the  cost  (such  part  of  the  50  per  cent  to 
be  assessed  upon  the  benefited  property  as  may  later  be  deter¬ 
mined)  ;  the  plan  of  improvement,  details  of  co-operation,  method 
of  prosecuting  the  work,  and  all  other  details  to  be  subject  to  the 
approval  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  be  it  further 

Resolved,  that  for  every  appropriation  set  aside  by  the  United 
States  to  be  used  in  this  improvement  this  council  pledges  itself 
on  behalf  of  the  City  of  Cleveland  to  appropriate  as  soon  as  prac¬ 
ticable  an  equal  amount,  and  be  it  further 

Resolved,  that  the  mayor  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  on 
behalf  of  the  City  of  Cleveland  to  make  this  offer  of  co-operation 
to  the  proper  federal  authorities. 

Adopted  by  a  unanimous  vote  July  14,  1913. 


10 


REPORT  OF  THE  SPECIAL  COMMITTEE  OF  THE 
COUNCIL  APPOINTED  TO  INVESTIGATE  AND 
REPORT  ON  THE  IMPROVEMENT  OF 
THE  LOWER  CUYAHOGA  RIVER. 

To  the  Honorable  Council  of  the  City  of  Cleveland. 

Gentlemen : 

1.  On  March  3,  1913,  by  Resolution  No.  28,438,  we  were  ap¬ 
pointed  a  special  committee  “to  investigate  and  gather  such  infor¬ 
mation  as  may  be  available  to  show  what  benefits  will  be  derived 
in  the  improvement  of  the  lower  Cuyahoga  River  by  the  shippers 
of  freight,  the  City  of  Cleveland  and  the  Federal  Government  with 
a  view  of  supplying* this  body  with  the  necessary  data  to  enable  it 
to  determine  upon  a  proper  division  of  the  expense  involved.” 

2.  After  a  number  of  meetings  and  conferences  with  those 
interested  in  and  informed  on  water  transportation  and  harbor  im¬ 
provements,  your  committee  begs  to  report  as  follows : 

3.  The  widening,  deepening,  straightening  and  otherwise  im¬ 
proving  the  Cuyahoga  River  between  the  present  upper  limits  of 
navigation  and  the  Denison-Harvard  viaduct  (G  to  H  on  the  at¬ 
tached  map)  was  authorized  by  the  Federal  Government  January 
24,  1913,  in  accordance  with  dock  lines  previously  established  by 
this  Council.  This  improvement  is  being  made  by  the  interested 
property  owners  and  the  city,  and  will  add  1.6  miles  of  channel  or 
3^  miles  to  the  present  12  miles  of  river  dock  frontage.  Two 
winding  basins  are  to  be  constructed  in  connection  with  this  im¬ 
provement,  which,  with  the  present  winding  basin  at  the  Ohio 
Canal  Lock,  will  afiford  three  winding  basins  sufficient  in  size  to 
wind  vessels  700  feet  in  length.  The  channel  from  the  present  up¬ 
per  limits  of  navigation  down  stream  to  the  Erie  Ry.  Bridge,  to¬ 
gether  with  the  upper  river  channel  now  being  improved  (G  to  F) 
will  have  a  total  length  of  3.3  miles  and  will  be  sufficiently  wide 
and  straight  to  provide  for  the  navigation  of  vessels  even  greater 

11 


Scope  of 

Committee’s 

Work. 


Upper  river 
being 
improved 
by  local 
interests. 


upstream 
portion 
of  channel 
important. 


Downstream 
end  of 
channel 
in  good 
condition. 


Description 
of  lower 
river 
channel. 


Benefits 
to  lower 
river  dock 
frontage. 


in  length  than  700  feet.  This  portion  of  the  Cuyahoga  River  is 
developing  into  the  most  important  part  of  Cleveland’s  harbor.  As 
shown  by  the  Riv^r  and  Harbor  Commission’s  report,  a  very  large 
proportion  of  the  river  tonnage  is  handled  in  the  up  stream  one- 
third  of  the  channel.  The  low  lying  valley  land  in  this  location 
has  a  greater  width  and  is  less  expensive  than  the  valley  land  near 
the  lake,  and  is  therefore  better  adapted  for  industrial  and  transfer 
purposes. 

4.  The  ^  of  a  mile  channel  from  the  Government  pier  heads 
in  the  lake  to  the  Superior  Viaduct  (A  to  B)  has  an  average  width 
of  280  feet;  the  minimum  contraction  being  130  feet  at  the  L.  S.  & 
M.  S.  Ry.  bridge.  From  the  standpoint  of  navigation  this  portion 
of  the  river  channel  is  very  satisfactory  except  that  the  congestion 
at  the  L.  S.  &  M.  S.  Ry.  bridge  should  be  relieved  and  will  be  by 
the  improvement  which  has  been  contemplated  for  a  number  of 
years  and  for  which  a  Federal  appropriation  is  provided. 

5.  As  shown  in  attached  tabular  statement  No.  1,  the  Cuya¬ 
hoga  River  channel  from  the  Erie  Ry.  bridge  to  the  Superior  Ave¬ 
nue  Viaduct  (F  to  B)  has  twelve  curves  or  bends,  with  radii  (to 
the  center  of  the  channel),  and  total  deflections  in  a  distance  of  2.92 
miles  of  considerably  more  than  two  complete  circles,  and  the  radii 
of  eight  of  the  bends  are  less  than  600  feet.  The  channel 
is  contracted  and  obstructed  in  varying  degrees  by  13  bridges,  5 
of  which  have  center  piers,  and  in  4  instances  bridges  are  located  at 
or  near  bends.  The  average  width  of  this  portion  of  the  channel  is 
about  145  feet,  and  the  minimum  width  at  bridges  110  feet.  Ves¬ 
sels  greater  in  length  than  480  feet  cannot  reach  the  upper  river 
terminals  because  of  not  being  able  to  pass  through  this  portion  of 
the  channel,  and  the  many  abrupt  bends  and  contractions  render  its 
navigation  by  smaller  vessels  difficult  and  tedious.  It  is  to  the  im¬ 
provement  of  this  lower  portion  of  the  Cuyahoga  River  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  Route  No.  1,  as  recommended  by  the  Cleveland  River 
and  Harbor  Commission,  that  your  Committee  has  directed  its  at¬ 
tention. 

6.  This  improvement  would  permit  about  78%  of  the  present 
or  old  river  channel  between  the  Erie  Ry.  bridge  and  the  Superior 
Viaduct  to  exist  in  the  form  of  slips.  The  rapidly  increasing  com¬ 
merce  carried  through  this  channel  to  the  upper  river  has  very 
materially  reduced  the  use  of  the  docks  for  commercial  purposes,  a 
large  proportion  of  the  dock  frontage  on  this  portion  of  the  chan¬ 
nel  is  now  unoccupied  or  devoted  to  non  commercial  uses.  Based 

12 


on  the  traffic  of  1912  the  amount  of  freight  transferred  over  the 
19,219  feet  of  docks  located  between  the  C.  C.  C.  &  St.  L.  Ry. 
lower  bridge  and  the  W.  &  L.  E.  lower  bridge  (C  to  E)  was 
279,627  tons,  or  14.5  tons  per  lineal  foot  of  dock;  while  the  amount 
of  freight  transferred  over  the  23,232  feet  of  dock  between  the 
lower  W.  &  L.  E.  Ry.  bridge  and  the  up  stream  limits  of  navigation 
(E  to  G)  was  3,227,476  tons,  or  138.9  tons  per  lineal  foot  of 
dock  frontage.  The  improvement  herein  contemplated  will  benefit 
the  5.2  miles  of  water  frontage  between  the  Erie  Ry.  bridge  and 
the  Superior  Viaduct  in  two  ways :  First,  the  present  congested 
condition  of  the  channel  will  be  relieved,  thereby  permitting  vessels 
to  load  and  unload  without  being  disturbed  by  passing  vessels  as 
at  present  when  the  channel  is  operated  as  a  main  thoroughfare. 
Second,  this  improvement  will  permit  the  using  of  the  slips  by  the 
largest  freight  vessels  now  navigating  the  Great  Lakes.  This 
change  of  conditions  we  feel  will  bring  about  a  change  of  occu¬ 
pancy  of  the  adjoining  water  frontage  from  industrial  and  non  use 
to  uses  more  directly  allied  to  water  transportation.  These  slips 
would  be  even  more  desirable  than  the  outer  harbor  for  the  moor¬ 
ing  of  vessels  during  the  winter  season,  for  the  reason  that  they 
are  afforded  fire  protection  and  are  much  more  accessible  tied  to 
the  dock  than  when  located  several  hundred  feet  from  land  in  the 
outer  harbor. 

7.  The  transfer  of  bulk  freight  to  or  from  water  in  Cleveland 
takes  place  in  two  locations :  first,  the  outer  harbor  and  old  river 
bed;  second,  in  the  Cuyahoga  River  up  stream  from  the  Superior 
Viaduct.  The  inbound  freight  handled  on  the  Cuyahoga  River  may 
be  divided  into  two  classes :  first,  the  material  remaining  at  or  near 
the  docks  which  is  not  trans-shipped;  second,  that  which  is  trans¬ 
shipped.  Both  classes  of  this  freight,  in  order  to  be  trans-shipped 
economically,  requires  unloading  machinery  the  first  cost  of  which 
is  expensive,  and  the  greatest  economy  in  unloading  results  only 
from  the  operation  of  modern  machinery  and  during  the  entire  sea¬ 
son  of  navigation.  As  a  specific  instance,  one  company  in  the  upper 
river  valley  trans-ships  annually  to  western  Pennsylvania  and 
Southern  points  from  200,000  to  300,000  tons.  If  this  company  had 
to  construct  and  operate  another  plant  on  the  lake  front,  or  if  the 
material  had  to  be  unloaded  at  any  plant  other  than  the  one  owned 
and  operated  by  this  company,  it  is  evident  that  the  unloading 
charges  would  be  excessive,  which  excess  would  ultimately  be  paid 
by  the  consumers  who  are  located  over  a  wide  area.  Conditions 

13 


Condition 
should 
provide  for 
economical 
transfer 
of  freight. 


space  on 
Lake  Front 
not  for 
industrial 
uses. 


Limited 
supply  of 
iron  and 
steel 
causes 
high  cost 
over  large 
area. 


should  therefore  be  provided  which  will  render  the  most  economical 
transfer  of  bulk  freight  from  water  to  rail,  viz. :  conditions  which 
will  provide  for  combined  industrial  and  commercial  terminals  or 
unloading  plants  along  the  river  docks.  That  this  operation  of  lo¬ 
cating  industrial  plants  on  the  lake  front  and  transferring  such 
freight  as  may  be  used  locally  and  also  trans-shipping  from  the 
same  plant  cannot  be  accomplished,  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
space  on  the  outer  harbor  between  the  existing  railroad  tracks  (the 
L.  S.  &  M.  S.)  and  the  dock  or  harbor  line  is  barely  sufficient  to 
accommodate  modern  bulk  freight  unloading  and  storage  plants 
at  which  nothing  of  an  industrial  nature  is  attempted,  and  further¬ 
more,  we  believe  that  the  outer  harbor  is  so  well  adapted  to  the 
needs  of  commerce  that  it  should  be  reserved  for  purely  commercial 
uses. 

8.  The  president  of  a  local  manufacturing  company  using 
large  quantities  of  iron  and  steel  is  authority  for  the  following 
statement :  *  *  *  Every  Cleveland  manufacturer  who  buys  any¬ 
thing  in  the  line  of  steel  products  knows  that  up  to  this  minute  we 
are  buying  everything  based  upon  Pittsburgh  freight  rates.  If  we 
buy  nails,  wire,  or  any  product  of  iron  or  steel,  we  pay  the  Pitts¬ 
burgh  price  plus  the  freight  to  Cleveland.  The  price  is  f.  o.  b. 
Pittsburgh  whether  it  comes  from  Youngstown,  Buffalo,  Canton  or 
Cleveland,  and  the  price  is  two  or  three  dollars  a  ton  above  what 
the  Pittsburgh  manufacturers  have  to  pay  for  the  same  material. 
I  think  there  is  no  one  thing  that  can  be  done  that  would  be  so  ad¬ 
vantageous  to  Cleveland  as  to  have  the  river  improved  so  that  it 
could  be  used  for  manufacturing  sites.”  While  this  statement  of 
Mr.  Chas.  E.  Adams  was  made  in  behalf  of  Cleveland  manufactur¬ 
ers,  it  also  indicates  that  the  Cleveland  consumers  of  these  products 
would  benefit  in  a  like  degree  by  this  improvement,  and  the  fact 
which  is  of  the  most  importance  is  that  the  benefits  derived  from 
the  establishment  of  an  independent  iron  and  steel  market  in 
Cleveland  will  extend  far  beyond  the  limits  of  this  city,  and  we  be¬ 
lieve  that  the  construction  of  a  channel  through  the  lower  flats 
which  will  enable  all  Great  Lake  bulk  carrying  vessels  to  reach  the 
extensive  and  economically  located  area  in  the  upper  valley  will 
be  so  attractive  that  the  completion  of  this  improvement  will  be  fol¬ 
lowed  very  closely  by  iron  and  steel  industries  the  operation  of 
which  will  remove  the  differential  which  is  now  charged  by  the 
Pittsburgh  and  other  markets  due  to  the  limited  supply  in  the 
Cleveland  district.  The  attached  tabular  statement  No.  2  shows  the 


14 


transportation  costs  of  assembling  the  three  ingredients  of  pig  iron 
at  various  locations.  This  table  indicates  that  pig  iron  can  be  pro¬ 
duced  in  the  Cuyahoga  Valley  at  a  saving  of  about  $1.08  per  ton 
over  adjacent  pig  iron  producing  districts.  The  amount  consumed 
over  the  district  supplied  by  this  market  approximates  550,000  tons 
per  annum,  or  a  net  saving  of  $594,000.00.  A  pig  iron  production 
in  the  Cuyahoga  Valley  sufficient  to  establish  a  base  price  over 
the  Cleveland  district  would  not  only  still  farther  reduce  the  cost 
of  steel  products  in  the  Cleveland  district,  but  the  competitive 
effect  would  have  a  tendency  of  reducing  prices  in  adjoining  pig 
iron  producing  districts. 

9.  This  improvement  would  benefit  the  City  of  Cleveland  by 
increasing  the  value  of  taxable  property,  thereby  permitting  a  reduc¬ 
tion  in  the  tax  rate,  or  making  possible  the  providing  of  additional 
funds  for  public  improvements.  If  commercial  and  industrial  de¬ 
velopments  follow  the  completion  of  this  improvement  as  such  de¬ 
velopment  has  followed  river  improvements  in  the  past,  the  addi¬ 
tional  receipts  from  taxes  and  increased  ability  to  issue  improve¬ 
ment  bonds  will  be  of  material  benefit  to  this  city;  and  while  the 
city’s  expenditures  would  be  increased  due  to  the  additional  demand 
for  public  improvements  and  added  maintenance  charges,  we  are 
confident  there  would  result  a  very  considerable  net  gain  to  this 
community. 

10.  The  annual  amount  paid  by  manufacturers  for  wages  and 
salaries  in  Cleveland  for  a  number  of  years,  as  determined  by  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  has  been  about  30%  of  the  first  cost  of  the 
plants;  based  on  the  estimated  cost  of  improvements,  or  $110,000,- 
000,  the  additional  amount  paid  for  labor  and  various  trade  and 
expert  services  would  amount  annually  to  about  $33,000,000,  or 
the  industrial  and  commercial  development  as  outlined  would  fur¬ 
nish  300  days  work  per  year  for  not  less  than  37,000  workmen. 
These  workmen  would  represent  a  demand  for  a  similar  number  of 
homes  which  in  turn  would  require  additional  labor  and  would  rep¬ 
resent  an  increased  demand  for  building  materials,  household  and 
miscellaneous  supplies,  merchandise,  professional  and  other  serv¬ 
ices.  For  these  reasons  your  committee  is  of  the  opinion  that 
benefits  so  far  reaching  to  the  citizens  of  Cleveland  justify  the 
city’s  liberal  assistance  in  financing  this  improvement. 

11.  The  completion  of  this  improvement  will  permit  the  city 
to  abandon  lower  and  middle  West  Third  Street  bridges  and  connect 
West  Third  Street  through  on  a  straight  line  from  Canal  Road  to 

15 


Benefits 
derived 
by  City. 


Increase 

local 

demand  for 
labor  and 
material. 


Benefits 
to  West  3rd 
street. 


Increased 
size  of 
vessels 
reduces 
transporta¬ 
tion  and 
terminal 
charges. 


T  erminals 
important. 


Growth  in 
size  of 
freighters. 


Factory  Avenue.  This  is  the  street  on  which  a  street  car  line  would 
be  located  to  provide  for  the  upper  river  district,  and  the  abandon¬ 
ing  of  these  two  moveable  bridges  and  removal  of  the  bends  in  the 
street  as  it  now  exists  would  facilitate  rapid  street  car  service  to  a 
very  desirable  extent. 

12.  The  Federal  Government  through  its  Department  of  Com¬ 
merce  and  Labor  ‘Tn  Transportation  by  Water  in  the  United  States, 
Part  1,”  states:  “On  the  coasts  and  the  Great  Lakes  there  has  been 
a  marked  increase  in  the  size  of  vessels,  bringing  about  a  reduction 
in  transportation  costs.”  It  may  also  be  added  in  this  connection 
that  the  rapid  increase  in  the  size  of  Great  Lakes  freight  vessels 
has  also  brought  a  reduction  in  terminal  or  transfer  charges  (See 
tabular  statement  No.  10)  and  an  engineer  who  designs  and  builds 
bulk  freight  machinery  is  authority  for  the  recent  statement  that 
transfer  charges  can  be  still  further  reduced  by  increasing  the  size 
of  unloading  machinery ;  but  the  larger  unloading  appliances  can  no 
longer  be  used  on  the  smaller  vessels.  This  condition  will  have  the 
tendency  of  still  farther  increasing  the  size  of  freight  vessels  and 
of  continuing  the  construction  of  the  present  larger  sizes;  and  the 
converse  of  this  is  also  true,  viz :  That  the  limiting  channel  of  the 
lower  river  and  the  consequent  enforced  use  of  small  vessels  has 
a  tendency  to  increase  transportation  and  terminal  charges  on  several 
million  tons  of  commerce  which  is  carried  through  the  lower  Cuya¬ 
hoga  river.  It  is  also  stated  in  the  volume  last  referred  to  that  “the 
terminal  is  the  weak  link  in  the  water  system  widely  nullifying  the 
advantages  of  cheap  water  transportation.”  While  there  are  large 
terminals  or  unloading  plants  located  along  the  upper  river  and 
while  there  is  ample  transfer  and  storage  space  for  the  bulk  freight, 
and  extensive  area  (3400  acres)  for  future  development,  the  effi¬ 
ciency  of  these  terminal  facilities,  both  present  and  prospective  is 
being  impaired  for  the  reason  that  Great  Lake  vessels  small  enough 
to  reach  these  docks  are  rapidly  decreasing.  Only  about 
55%  of  the  American  freight  carrying  vessels  on  the  Great  Lakes 
can  pass  through  the  abrupt  bends  and  narrow  channel  of  the 
lower  river  and  this  number  is  decreasing  each  year.  The  attached 
tabular  statement  No.  3  shows  the  length  and  carrying  capacity  of 
all  lake  freighters  constructed  since  1900.  For  convenience  in  con¬ 
sidering  this  improvement,  lake  freight  vessels  are  arbitrarily  di¬ 
vided  into  two  classes,  viz :  first-class  vessels  or  those  480  feet  in 
length  or  over  and  which  do  not  navigate  the  Cuyahoga  river; 
second-class,  or  those  vessels  less  than  480  feet  in  length  and  which 

16 


can  navigate  the  Cuyahoga  river.  It  is  interesting  to  note  on  tabular 
statement  No.  4  that  the  first  vessel  constructed  which  belongs  to 
the  first  class  was  launched  in  1900  and  since  1905  new  vessels 
of  this  class  have  been  greatly  in  excess  of  the  second  class 
freighters,  and  all  the  bulk  freight  vessels  launched  during  the  last 
two  years  have  belonged  to  the  first  class.  Considering  the  fact  that 
the  first  first-class  vessel  was  constructed  thirteen  years  ago  and 
that  now  practically  one-half  of  the  bulk  freight  vessels  on  the  Great 
Lakes  are  excluded  from  the  upper  river  docks,  leads  us  to  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  if  the  Cuyahoga  river  channel  exists  as  it  is 
today  for  another  thirteen  year  period,  the  number  of  vessels  that 
can  reach  the  upper  river  terminals  will  be  so  few  that  a  very  sub¬ 
stantial  dififerential  will  be  charged.  One  upper  river  shipper  whose 
inbound  tonnage  amounted  to  990,000  tons  in  1912,  replying  to  ques¬ 
tions  regarding  the  improvement  of  the  lower  river  and  the  future 
tonnage  of  the  upper  river  writes:  “We  figure  that  our  inbound 
tonnage  by  water  five  years  hence  will  amount  to  2,000,000  tons  of 
iron  ore  and  300,000  tons  of  limestone  per  season ;  our  outbound 
tonnage  by  water  will  amount  to  100,000  tons  Bituminous  coal  and 
100,000  tons  of  steel  products.  If  the  river  is  not  straightened  it 
will  be  impossible  to  secure  sufficient  vessel  capacity  to  take  care 
of  this  inbound  business  in  a  season  where  there  is  a  big  demand 
for  vessel  tonnage,  without  paying  a  high  premium.  Also  you  prob¬ 
ably  know,  nine-tenths  of  the  vessels  which  now  take  ore  to  the 
river  ore  docks  are  not  of  the  type  of  construction  adapted  for 
economical  unloading  with  the  large  ore  unloading  equipment  now 
being  installed.  Regarding  the  manufacture  of  coke  at  blast  fur¬ 
naces,  instead  of  in  the  coal  mining  districts:  We  believe  this  will 
increase  the  water  transportation  of  this  port  in  the  way  of  shipping 
out  cargoes  of  coke  to  various  upper  lake  destinations,  Cleveland 
being  especially  well  equipped  for  this  coke  production  on  account 
of  the  freight  rates  from  Pennsylvania  and  West  Virginia  fields.’' 
The  River  and  Harbor  Commission  have  estimated  that  the  iron 
ore  commerce  alone  up  stream  from  this  contemplated  improvement 
will  within  the  next  five  years  probably  amount  to  7,000,000  tons 
annually.  Figures  obtained  from  three  independent  sources  have 
revealed  the  fact  that  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  carrying  a  ton 
of  iron  ore  in  a  vessel  600  feet  in  length  (capacity  12000  tons)  and 
the  cost  of  carrying  a  ton  of  ore  in  a  vessel  400  feet  in  length  (ca¬ 
pacity  6000  tons)  is  not  less  than  6c  per  ton.  To  this  carrying 
charge  should  be  added  about  2c  to  cover  the  additional  cost  of 

17 


Probable 

differential. 


Probable 
future 
upper  river 
commerce. 


Terminal 
charges 
greater 
on  small 
vessels. 

Outbound 
tonnage 
increased 
by  coke. 


Transporta¬ 
tion  costs 
vary  with 
si::e  of 
vessel. 


Probable 

differential 

due  to 

enforced 

use  of 

small 

vessels. 


Importance 
of  the 
port  of 
Cleveland. 


unloading  the  smaller  vessel.  It  is  hardly  probable  that  the  vessel 
owners  will  continue  indefinitely  to  bear  this  extra  cost  of  delivering 
cargoes  in  the  upper  Cuyahoga  Valley,  without  making  an  extra 
charge.  Indeed  the  tendency  of  the  interstate  commerce  regula¬ 
tions  make  it  not  unlikely  that  the  Government  may  eventually  re¬ 
quire  the  lake  freight  rates  to  be  proportioned  in  accordance  with 
the  cost  of  the  service.  For  these  reasons  we  feel  safe  in  assuming 
that  the  enforced  use  of  the  small  and  therefore  uneconomical  ves¬ 
sels  will  involve  a  minimum  extra  transportation  and  transfer  charge 
against  the  upper  river  tonnage  approximating  5c  per  ton,  while  the 
maximum  dififerential  would  probably  not  exceed  10c  per  ton  for 
a  number  of  years.  Assuming  the  average  (7l/2c)  of  these  two 
extremes  to  be  in  operation  for  five  of  the  next  fifteen  years  and 
not  to  be  in  operation  the  other  ten  years  the  extra  cost  to  the 
upper  river  shippers  during  the  entire  fifteen  year  period  would 
amount  to  $2,600,000.00  which  extra  charge  would  be  borne  by  the 
consumers  of  this  freight.  This  improvement  would  therefore  have 
a  tendency  of  either  effecting  a  decrease  in  freight  rates  or  pre¬ 
venting  an  increase  of  approximately  6%  per  year.  The  total 
saving  for  the  fifteen  year  period  would  amount  to  $180,000.00  per 
year  which  on  the  basis  of  4%  interest  would  justify  an  investment 
'of  about  $4,500,000.00  or  an  expenditure  of  $6,000,000.00  would  be 
justified  if  a  3%  interest  bearing  loan  could  be  negotiated.  Your 
committee  is  therefore  of  the  opinion  that  both  the  upper  river 
shippers  and  the  Federal  Government  could  well  afford  to  contribute 
toward  the  cost  of  an  improvement  that  will  render  the  upper  riyer 
terminals  easily  accessible  to  all  vessels  navigating  the  Great  Lakes 
and  thereby  save  transportation  and  transfer  charges  which  in  a  few 
years  will  probably  extend  into  millions  of  dollars. 

13.  The  port  of  Cleveland  as  a  transfer  and  distributing  point 
is  important  and  is  rapidly  increasing  in  importance  for  the  follow¬ 
ing  reasons :  First,  Cleveland  is  located  on  one  of  the  main  arteries 
of  traffic  between  the  east,  with  New  York  City  as  a  center,  and  the 
west.  Second,  the  Cuyahoga  river  valley  is  an  economically  favor¬ 
able  location  for  the  assembling  of  iron  ore  from  the  northwest, 
coal  and  coke  from  Western  Pennsylvania,  West  Virginia  and  the 
east  Ohio  coal  fields,  and  limestone  from  the  westerly  end  of  Lake 
Erie.  Third,  recently  the  state  of  Ohio  has  improved  that  portion 
of  the  Ohio  canal  between  the  canal  weigh-lock  at  the  lower  winding 
basin  in  the  Cuyahoga  river  and  the  Muskingum  river  at  Dresden. 
This  improvement  has  consisted  in  widening  and  deepening  the  canal 

18 


and  constructing  concrete  locks,  the  total  cost  to  date  approximating 
$1,000,000.00.  This  canal  and  its  branches  pass  through  the  eastern 
and  southern  Ohio  coal  fields,  a  large  agricultural  district,  and 
industrial  sections  of  considerable  importance,  the  most  notable  of 
which  are  Akron,  Canton  and  Massillon.  The  Ohio  canal  forms  the 
connecting  link  between  the  Great  Lakes  and  the  Ohio  River.  It  is 
difficult  at  this  time  to  predict  the  amount  of  commerce  that  will  be 
carried  on  this  waterway  but  the  possibilities  are  such  as  to  deserve 
serious  consideration  of  the  effect  of  its  commerce  upon  this  port. 
Fourth,  the  completion  of  the  New  York  State  Barge  Canal  will 
make  possible  the  bringing  to  Cleveland  by  water  for  consumption 
and  distribution  such  materials  as  slate,  marble,  paving  stone  and 
cement,  all  of  which  originate  on  the  Barge  Canal  or  its  branches. 
One  of  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  the  completion  of  the  Panama 
Canal  will  be  the  shipping  of  lumber  from  the  Pacific  Coast  to 
Cleveland  by  the  all  water  route  at  a  saAong  of  from  seven  to 
nine  dollars  per  thousand  over  the  present  practice  of  shipping  by 
rail  overland.  Fifth,  the  widening,  deepening  and  otherwise  improv¬ 
ing  the  Welland  Canal  so  as  to  accommodate  the  largest  vessels  now 
navigating  the  Great  Lakes  and  thereby  connecting  Cleveland  and 
■the  Cuyahoga  river  with  salt  water  navigation  will  undoubtedly 
create  an  increased  demand  for  the  transfer  and  distributing  facil¬ 
ities  of  this  port. 

14.  The  maximum  discharge  through  the  Cuyahoga  river  dur¬ 
ing  the  flood  of  1904  was  27,600  cubic  feet  per  second,  and  the 
greatest  discharge  during  the  flood  of  last  March  as  determined  by 
current  meter  observations  was  32,400  cubic  feet  per  second,  or  a 
run-off  of  44  cubic  feet  per  second  per  square  mile.  An  analysis 
of  the  rain  record  ‘for  that  period  indicates  that  the  high  water  was 
caused  by  a  rainfall  of  3  inches  which  fell  during  the  20  hour 
period  beginning  at  2  P.  M.  of  the  24th.  This  3  inches  of  rain  was 
preceded  by  two  preliminary  storms  amounting  to  2.31  inches. 
These  preliminary  rains  saturated  the  ground,  thereby  causing  the 
3  inches  which  fell  during  the  20  hour  period  to  produce  a  high 
run-off.  According  to  the  rain  gauge  readings  which  have  been 
taken  in  Cleveland  since  1879  a  rainfall  of  3  inches  in  a  period  of 
20  hours  is  likely  to  occur  once  every  11  years.  The  only  other 
condition  necessary  to  cause  high  water  is  the  thorough  saturation 
or  freezing  of  the  ground.  These  figures  are  verified  by 
the  fact  that  extreme  high  water  has  occurred  in  the  Cuya¬ 
hoga  valley  in  the  following  years:  1881,  1893,  1904  and  1913. 

19 


Recent 

and 

probable 

future 

floods. 


Flood 

damage. 


Portions 
of  channel 
are 

adequate. 


Flood 
prevention 
problem 
easy  of 
solution. 


It  is  therefore  evident  that  another  flood  may  be  expected  not  later 
than  1924,  and  other  floods  at  intervals  of  about  11  years.  Since 
the  Cuyahoga  river  valley  has  been  flooded  to  a  damaging  extent 
about  every  nine  or  ten  years,  the  recent  flood  may  therefore  be 
considered  merely  another  decennial  object  lesson.  While  the  water 
last  March  was  but  little  higher  than  during  the  previous  flood 
periods,  the  damage  was  considerably  greater  than  heretofore  for 
the  reason  that  property  values  and  developments  in  the  Cuyahoga 
valley  have  greatly  increased  since  the  last  high  water.  The  total 
submerged  area  including  both  developed  and  undeveloped  property 
below  the  Denison-Harvard  viaduct  was  2740  acres  and  is  shaded 
in  red  on  the  attached  map.  The  amount  of  damage  thus  far 
reported  from  companies  and  individuals  amounts  to  about 
$1,250,000.00.  However,  it  will  be  impossible  to  reduce  to  dollars 
and  cents  the  loss  caused  by  the  enforced  and  somewhat  prolonged  sus 
pension  of  commerce  due  to  the  submerged  railway  tracks  and  vari¬ 
ous  items  of  damage  to  railway  property,  suspension  of  various 
other  operations  and  miscellaneous  items  of  damage.  About  16 
years  ago,  at  a  cost  of  $550,000.00,  the  City  widened  that  portion 
of  the  channel  which  is  between  the  old  river  bed  and  the  Superior 
viaduct  and  this  portion  of  the  channel  proved  entirely  adequate 
to  provide  for  the  maximum  discharge  during  the  last  flood ;  the 
water  rising  no  higher  than  the  dock  level.  The  highest  elevation 
of  water  at  the  Main  Ave.  bridge  being  about  2^^  feet  below  the 
top  of  the  docks.  Recently  the  city  widened,  straightened,  deepened 
and  otherwise  improved,  at  an  approximate  cost  of  $490,000,000, 
that  portion  of  the  channel  which  is  located  between  the  Erie  Ry. 
bridge  and  the  present  up-stream  limits  of  navigation.  This  im.- 
provement  eliminated  the  narrow  and  crooked  channel  at  Jefferson 
Avenue  which  was  entirely  inadequate  both  from  the  standpoint 
of  navigation  and  flood  discharge,  and  provided  a  channel  width  of 
200  feet  and  a  depth  from  the  dock  level  of  about  31  feet.  The  de¬ 
flections  in  the  channel  are  such  as  to  offer  but  slight  resistance 
to  flow.  This  improvement  had  but  little  helpful  effect  during  the 
last  flood  for  the  reason  that  the  flow  was  obstructed  by  the  con¬ 
tracted  and  crooked  channel  between  the  Superior  Viaduct  and  the 
Erie  Ry.  bridge  which  channel  is  described  in  paragraph  5  of  this 
report.  The  straightening  of  the  river  channel  from  the  Erie  Ry. 
bridge  to  the  Superior  Viaduct,  as  recently  recommended  by  the 
River  and  Harbor  Commission,  will  provide  a  channel  with  capacity 
sufficient  to  carry  the  recent  high  water  with  a  factor  of  safety  of 

20 


almost  two,  which  factor  will  apply  to  the  new  channel  when 
straightened  and  deepened  as  far  south  as  the  Denison-Harvard 
viaduct.  While  the  straightening  of  this  portion  of  the  river  has 
been  undertaken  principally  in  the  interests  of  navigation  and  com¬ 
merce,  the  recent  high  water  has  again  demonstrated  that  the  work 
is  almost  as  important  as  a  safeguard  against  future  flood  damage. 
(Appended  to  this  report  are  four  photographs,  two  of  which 
were  taken  during  the  high  water  of  last  March  and  two  taken 
recently  but  at  the  same  locations  used  in  taking  the  two  flood 
photographs.) 

15.  The  present  plan  of  improving  the  lower  Cuyahoga  river 
in  accordance  with  Route  No.  1,  involves  widening  the  channel  at 
the  Superior  Viaduct  on  the  west  side,  opening  the  west  channel, 
and  the  probable  removal  of  the  center  pier  of  the  Superior  Viaduct. 
A  new  cut  is  to  be  made  from  near  the  proposed  location  of  the  new 
high  level  bridge,  through  the  flats  about  1200  feet  to  the  present 
channel.  This  cut  will  eliminate  the  congestion  at  the  Irishtown 
Bend  and  the  present  difficulty  of  navigating  the  narrow  bend  at 
Columbus  Road.  The  length  of  the  old  channel  from  the  upper 
and  lower  limits  of  the  new  cut  is  5200  feet.  From  the  upper  end 
of  this  cut  another  new  channel  will  be  completed  meeting  the  old 
channel  approximately  opposite  the  Cincinnati  Slip  (D.)  This  cut 
eliminates  the  very  troublesome  Collision  bend.  The  length  of  the 
new  channel  is  2000  feet  and  the  length  of  the  present  channel  is 
4500  feet.  The  number  of  bridges  encountered  by  vessels  passing 
along  the  present  channel  from  th^  Superior  Viaduct  to  the  Cincin¬ 
nati  Slip  (B  to  D)  is  7,  while  the  new  channel  between  these  limits 
will  be  crossed  by  5  bridges.  The  completion  of  the  above  described 
portion  of  the  contemplated  improvement  will  remove  all  bends 
from  the  lower  river,  excepting  the  bend  which  would  be  eliminated 
by  the  Mahoning  Cut.  While  this  bend  is  a  very  undesirable  one 
from  the  vesselman’s  standpoint,  yet  its  dimensions  are  such  that  it 
can  be  navigated,  although  slowly,  by  many  of  the  large  size  vessels. 
By  first  completing  the  two  cuts  below  the  Cincfnnati  slip  the  cost  of 
dredging  the  Mahoning  cut  should  be  lessened  by  the  length  of 
haul  being  reduced  6500  feet  and  by  the  relieved  congestion  in  the 
lower  channel.  If  all  attention  is  given  to  this  portion  of  the  im¬ 
provement  alone,  it  can  probably  be  completed  at  an  earlier  date 
than  by  prosecuting  the  work  of  all  three  of  the  cuts  at  one  time. 
We,  therefore,  beg  to  urge  upon  your  Honorable  Body  the  urgent 
necessity  of  completing  this  portion  of  the  improvement  first,  and 

21 


Description 
of  im¬ 
provement. 


Importance 
of  com¬ 
pleting  lozv- 
er  cuts 
first. 


* 


Cost 
per  ton 
of  annual 
tonnage 


Government 
expenditure 
on  ocean 
Ports. 


Government 
expenditures 
on  river 
projects. 


Government 
expenditures 
on  Great 
Lake 
harbors. 


T  otal 

Federal  ex¬ 
penditure. 


with  all  possible  haste.  The  estimated  cost  of  the  lower  Cuyahoga 
river  improvement  below  the  Cincinnati  slip  is  $3,100,000.  On  the 
basis  of  the  River  and  Harbor  Commission’s  recommendations,  that 
the  City  and  benefited  property  pay  one-half  of  this  cost  and  that 
the  Federal  Government  assume  one-half  of  the  expense,  the  cost 
to  the  Government  would  be  $1,550,000.00,  or  30c  per  ton  of  the 
annual  tonnage  based  on  the  river  commerce  above  the  Superior 
Viaduct  in  1912 ;  or  based  on  the  tonnage  upstream  from  the  Cin¬ 
cinnati  slip  which  tonnage  will  probably  be  more  directly  benefited 
than  that  downstream,  the  Government’s  share  of  the  expense 
would  be  47c  per  ton.  The  commerce  between  the  Cincinnati  slip 
and  the  Erie  Ry.  bridge  in  1912  added  to  the  annual  tonnage,  esti¬ 
mated  by  the  River  and  Harbor  Commission,  which  will  be  carried 
upstream  from  the  Erie  Ry.  bridge  within  the  next  five  years  would 
involve  a  Federal  expense  of  21c  per  annual  ton  of  commerce. 

16.  As  shown  on  the  attached  statement  No.  5,  the  Federal 
Government  has  expended  more  than  $1,000,000  per  harbor  for 
the  improvement  of  25  harbors  on  salt  water,  exclusive  of  New 
York  and  Boston.  The  amount  paid  by  the  Federal  Government 
in  the  improvement  of  these  harbors  exceeds  47c  per  ton  in  23  of 
these  cases,  and  the  average  expenditure  on  the  25  ocean  ports 
costing  over  $1,000,000  is  $1.18  per  annual  ton. 

17.  As  indicated  on  the  attached  tabular  statement  No.  6, 
$1,000,000  or  more  has  been  expended  by  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment  in  the  improvement  of  each  of  51  river  projects,  47  of  which 
cost  over  47c  per  annual  ton  and  48  over  21c  per  annual  ton,  and 
the  average  Federal  expenditure  for  the  51  river  improvements  is 
a  minimum  of  73c  per  annual  ton. 

18.  The  attached  tabular  statement  No.  7  shows  that  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Government  has  expended  47c  -per  annual  ton,  or  over,  on  30 
harbors  on  the  Great  Lakes  and  in  excess  of  21c  per  ton  in  37  cases ; 
while  in  12  Great  Lake  projects  the  Federal  assistance  has  been 
less  than  47c  per  annual  ton  and  in  5  instances  less  than  21c  per 
annual  ton ;  the  average  expenditure  for  the  41  improvements  being 
47c  per  annual  ton. 

19.  As  indicated  by  the  report  for  the  year  1911  of  the  Chief 
of  Engineers,  U.  S.  A.,  the  Eederal  Government  has  expended, 
including  unexpended  appropriations,  a  grand  total  of  $467,306,901 
on  all  salt  water,  river  and  Great  Lake  projects  which  had  a  total 
tonnage  in  1911  of  678,497,531  tons,  or  the  average  Eederal  assist¬ 
ance  on  these  improvements  amounts  to  69c  per  annual  ton. 

22 


% 


20.  As  shown  on  the  attached  tabular  statements  Nos.  8  and 
9,  the  City  has  expended  to  date  on  Cuyahoga  river  improvements 
$3,545,028.97.  If  to  the  actual  cash  outlay  by  the  City  for  Cuya¬ 
hoga  river  improvements  be  added  the  cost  of  engineering,  and 
interest  on  such  portion  of  the  last  mentioned  amount  as  was  bor¬ 
rowed  and  on  which  interest  is  being  paid  at  the  rate  of  approxi¬ 
mately  4%,  the  total  amount  expended  by  Cleveland  since  1856  for 
river  improvements  will  approximate  $4,500,000.00.  A  considerable 
portion  of  this  amount  has  been  devoted  to  the  construction  of  per¬ 
manent  improvements  which  have  benefited  navigation  both  by  in¬ 
creasing  terminal  facilities  and  improving  the  Cuyahoga  river  as  a 
general  channel  of  approach.  If  the  City  bears  half  and  the  Govern¬ 
ment  assumes  half  of  the  expense  of  the  present  project  below  the 
Cincinnati  slip,  the  amount  paid  by  the  City  of  Cleveland  for  Cuya¬ 
hoga  river  improvements  neglecting  engineering  and  interest  will  be 
76%  of  the  total  cost. 

21.  Including  unexpended  appropriations  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment  has  expended  on  the  port  of  Cleveland  since  1825,  $7,624,666.77 
which  on  the  basis  of  the  tonnage  below  the  Superior  Viaduct  and 
in  the  outer  harbor  for  1912  amounts  to  80c  per  annual  ton.  Adding 
to  this  commerce  the  tonnage  handled  below  the  Cincinnati  slip,  the 
cost  per  annual  ton  is  68c.  The  Cleveland  River  and  Harbor  Com¬ 
mission  will  soon  report  upon  a  plan  for  a  very  extensive  increased 
use  of  the  outer  harbor.  In  this  connection  it  may  be  interesting  to 
note  that  negotiations  have'  very  recently  been  completed  with  two 
navigation  companies  for  space  on  the  outer  harbor  near  the  foot  of 
East  9th  Street  which  will  involve  the  handling  of  approximately 
600,000  tons  of  packet  freight  per  annum  and  900,000  passengers. 
One  of  these  docks  will  be  utilized  by  the  largest  passenger  steamer 
on  fresh  water  and  the  largest  side  wheel  vessel  afloat. 

22.  Your  committee  is  confident  that  the  largest  item  of  benefit 
to  be  derived  from  this  improvement  will  be  the  efifect  upon  trans¬ 
portation  and  terminal  charges  on  a  rapidly  increasing  volume  of 
upper  Cuyahoga  river  commerce,  which  in  1912  amounted  to 
5,206,715  tons;  these  benefits  will  be  distributed  over  a  wide  area, 
the  limits  of  which  are  rather  difficult  of  exact  location. 

The  item  of  benefit  which  we  are  inclined  to  rate  as  second  in 
importance  is  the  probable  reduction  in  the  cost  of  iron  and  steel 
products.  This  again  will  extend  over  a.  wide  area,  the  limits  of 
which  may  in  a  few  years  include  and  extend  beyond  other  iron 
and  steel  manufacturing  centers. 


Amount 
City  has 
expended 
on  river 
improve¬ 
ments. 


Federal 
expenditure 
on  port  of 
Cleveland. 


Summary 

of 

benefits. 


Recommen¬ 

dations. 


The  large  and  rapidly  increasing  property  values  in  the  Cuya¬ 
hoga  valley  will  be  greatly  benefited  by  the  prevention  of  future 
flood  damage. 

The  City  will  be  favorably  affected  by  the  increase  in  terminal 
capacity  and  therefore  the  value  of  the  lower  river  transfer  docks 
and  the  upper  river  commercial  and  industrial  areas. 

The  City  will  also  be  benefited  by  its  increased  ability  to 
finance  public  improvements,  the  immense  increased  demand  for 
labor  and  material,  and  the  improvement  of  W.  3rd  St. 

23.  Your  committee  regrets  that  it  is  unable  to  determine  with 
mathematical  precision  the  exact  proportion  of  benefits  derived  re¬ 
spectively  by  the  local  and  Federal  governments,  but  we  feel  con¬ 
fident  that  the  cost  of  the  improvement  is  fully  justified  and  that 
either  government  would  be  warranted,  on  the  basis  of  benefits  de¬ 
rived,  in  defraying  the  entire  expense  of  the  project.  For  the  reason 
that  both  the  local  and  general  benefits  are  so  large  and  since,  and  as 
hereinbefore  shown,  the  Federal  Government  would  be  expending 
an  amount  considerably  less  than  is  the  general  practice,  we  recom¬ 
mend  that  this  Council  assure  the  Federal  officials  of  this  City's  will¬ 
ingness  to  co-operate  to  the  extent  of  50%  of  the  cost  of  improving 
the  lower  Cuyahoga  river  below  the  Cincinnati  slip  in  accordance 
with  Route  No.  1  as  recommended  by  th^  River  and  Harbor  Com¬ 
mission. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

Jos.  Menning, 

Jas.  J.  McGinty, 

Wm.  J.  Horrigan, 

Wm.  Stolte, 

Wm.  B.  Woods, 

Special  Committee. 

Cleveland,  O.,  June  30,  1913. 


24 


Tabular  Statement  No.  1  Showing  Radii,  and  Distance  from  Superior 
Ave.  Viaduct,  and  Deflections  of  Curves  or  Bends  in  the  Cuyahoga 
River  Channel  Between  the  Erie  Ry.  Bridge  and  the  Superior  Ave. 
Viaduct. 

Distance  from  Radii  Deflection 


Location  of  Bend 

Superior  Viaduct 
in  miles 

in  feet 

Degrees 

Min. 

Superior  Viaduct  . 

. 0 

295 

81 

«  • 

Irishtown  . 

. 47 

772 

81 

30 

Columbus  Road . 

. 79 

405 

92 

05 

Girard  Street  . 

. 95 

530 

45 

30 

B,  &  O.  Freight  Station . 

. 1.13 

540 

76 

45 

Big  Four  Passenger  Bridge  . . 

. 1.25 

665 

27 

*  . 

Collision  Bend  . 

. 1.64 

350 

147 

«  • 

West  6th  St . 

. 1.84 

1110 

39 

45 

Cincinnati  Slip  . 

. 2.03 

1250 

21 

15 

Walworth  Run  . 

. 2.22 

520 

46 

•  • 

Mahoning  Avenue  . 

. 2.45 

305 

51 

45 

Dry  Dock  Street . 

. 2.92 

372 

108 

Total* . 

817 

35 

25 


Tabular  Statement  No.  2  Showing  Transportation  Assembling  Charges 
on  Raw  Material  (Two  Tons  of  Iron  Ore,  One  Ton  of  Coke,  One- 
Half  Ton  of  Limestone)  to  Produce  One  Ton  of  Pig  Iron. 

Pittsburgh  District  . $5.14 

Wheeling  District  .  4.97 

Youngstown  or  Valley  District  .  4.78 

Chicago  District  .  4.61 

Cleveland  District  .  3.70 


26 


Tabular  Statement  No.  3  Showing  Length  and  Capacity  of  all  Great 
Lakes  American  Freight  Vessels  Constructed  Since  and  Including 


1900. 

1900 

First  Class* 

Second  Class** 

Name 

Length  Capacity 

'  Length 

Capacity 

Edenborn,  Wm . 

.  498  8300 

Elwood,  Isaac  L . 

Gates,  John  W . 

Hill,  James  J . 

Poe,  Gen,  Orlander  M.  .  , . 

.  498  8300 

.  498  8300 

.  490  7800 

Albright,  John  J . 

436 

7000 

Bryn  Mawr  . 

420 

7500 

Bunsen,  R.  W.  E . 

466 

7400 

Cornell . 

474 

74,00 

Dimmick  . 

424 

7000 

Harvard  . 

474 

7700 

Mitchell,  Alfred  . 

290 

3100 

Murphy,  Simon  J . 

448 

7600 

Marsala  . 

456 

8000 

Neptune  . 

366 

5500 

Princeton  . 

474 

7500 

Reis,  Wm.  E . 

436 

7000 

Rensselar  . 

474 

7700 

Scranton,  Walter  . 

436 

7000 

Shaw,  Howard  L . 

448 

7400 

Van  Hise,  Chas,  R . 

263 

2200 

Waccamaw  . 

466 

7600 

Wilson,  Capt.  Thomas  . . .  . 

436 

7000 

Total  . 

.  41,000 

121,600 

Christopher  . 

1901 

430 

6300 

Colonel  . 

376 

5800 

Elphicke,  Mary  C . 

450 

7000 

Flagg,  G.  A . 

338 

4300 

Gilchrist  . 

376 

6000 

Heffelfinger,  F.  T . 

450 

7000 

Hutchinson,  J.  T . 

366 

5500 

Jupiter  . 

366 

5500 

Lake  Shore  . 

376 

5900 

Mack,  Wm.  S . 

366 

5500 

Maitland,  Alex  . 

386 

5600 

Orion  . 

289 

3200 

Peavev,  Frank  H . 

450 

7000 

Peavey,  Geo  W . 

450 

7000 

Steinbrenner,  Henry  . 

440 

6600 

Thompson,  A.  W . 

320 

4400 

Venus . 

366 

5500 

Warner,  Randolph  S . 

338 

4300 

Wells,  Frederick  B . 

450 

7000 

Whitnev,  David  M . 

Warriner,  S.  D . 

432 

7000 

320 

4400 

Yosemite  . 

376 

5600 

Total  . 

126,400 

*First  Class — V essels 

480  feet  in  length  and  over. 

**Second  Class — Vessels  less  than  480  feet  in  length. 

27 


TABULAR  STATEMENT  NO.  3— Continued. 


1902 

First  Class*  Second  Class** 

Name  Length  Capacity  Length  Capacity 

Chieftain  .  362  4900 

Fitch,  Wm.  F .  366  5000 

Crammer,  G.  J .  454  6900 

Gratwick,  Wm.  H.  . .  436  7000 

Hart,  Frank  W .  400  6500 

Hoyt,  James  H .  424  6700 

Jenks,  J.  M .  434  7000 

Luzon .  366  5400 

Nottingham,  Wm .  400  6300 

Nye,  Harold  B .  400  6300 

Osborn,  F.  M .  400  6500 

Panay . .  ,  376  5700 

Saunders,  E.  N .  400  6500 

Smith,  L.  C .  434  7000 

Sonora .  366  5000 

Steel  King  .  400  6500 

Stewart,  A.  E .  376  5000 

Sultana  .  366  5000 

Taylor,  Moses .  436  7000 

Warner,  Chas.  M .  390  5600 

Watson,  C.  W .  400  6500 

Wilkinson,  H.  S .  390  5600 


Total  .  134,600 

1903 

Craig,  Geo.  L .  380  5900 

French,  G.  Watson  .  376  6000 

Gilchrist,  F.  W .  436  7000 

Gilchrist,  J.  C .  436  7000 

Hawgood,  H.  B .  434  7000 

Ireland,  R.  L .  436  7000 

Kensington  .  380  5500 

Kerr,  D.  G .  468  7800 

Leonard,  Geo.  B .  400  6300 

Mack,  Wm.  Henry  .  374  5700 

Miller,  P.  P .  374  5700 

Minch,  Anna  C .  400  6300 

Montezuma  .  362  4900 

Reed,  James  H .  468  7300 

Saxona  .  436  7000 

Schuck,  R.  E .  436  7000 

Sill,  Henry  S .  436  7000 

Sinaloa  .  436  7000 

Smith,  Lyman  B .  400  6100 

Smith,  Hurlburt  W .  436  7000 

Smith,  Monroe  C .  400  6100 

Smith,  Wilbert  L .  400  6100 

Sonoma  .  436  7000 

Squire,  F.  B .  430  6800 

Walker,  Perry  G .  436  7000 

Wallace,  Robt .  261  2600 

Weeks,  J.  L .  436  7000 

Western  Star  .  436  7000 

Woodruff,  Lewis  .  436  7000 


Total  .  187,100 

28 


TABULAR  STATEMENT  NO.  S—Continued. 

1904 

First  Class*  Second  Class** 

Name  Length  Capacity  Length  Capacity 

Sahara  .  494  8000 

Augustus  B.  Wolvin .  560  10000 

Edwin  F.  Holmes  .  434  6200 

Wisconsin .  434  6200 

Umbria  .  440  6500 

Francis  Widlar .  436  6200 

Martin  Mullen .  436  6200 

R.  W.  England  .  376  5000 


Total  .  18,000  36,300 

1905 

Ball  Brothers  .  500  8000 

James  C.  Wallace  .  552  10000 

Philip  Minch  .  500  8000 

Sylvania  .  524  9000 

Amasa  Stone .  545  10000 

L.  C.  Hanna  .  524  9000 

E.  H.  Gary  .  569  10500 

S.  M.  Clement .  500  8000 

Socapa  .  524  9000 

Lyman  C.  Smith .  545  10000 

Wm.  E.  Cory  .  569  10500 

W.  A.  Paine  .  500  8000 

W.  A.  Rogers  .  545  10000 

Powell  Stackhouse  .  524  9000 

H.  C.  Frick  .  569  10500 

John  Stanton  .  524  9000 

Joseph  G.  Butler,  Jr .  545  10000 

James  E.  Davidson  .  524  9000 

Hoover  &  Mason  .  524  9000 

Peter  White  .  524  9000 

W.  G.  Mather  .  531  9300 

James  P.  Walsh  .  500  8000 

Eugene  Zimmerman  .  500  8000 

Geo.  H.  Russel  .  484  7600 

Frank  J,  Hecker .  484  7600 

Francis_L.  Robbins  .  400  5500 


Total  .  226,000  5,500 

1906 

W,  K.  Bixby .  500  8000 

Tames  B.  Wood  .  534  9500 

Frank  C.  Ball  .  550  10000 

B.  F.  Jones  .  550  10000 

Jos.  Selwood  .  545  10000 

E.  D.  Carter  .  524  9000 

Chas.  S.  Hebard .  524  9000 

Loftus  Cudy  .  545  10000 

Abraham  Steam .  545  10000 

David  Z.  Norton .  500  8000 

John  Sherwin  .  534  9500 

29 


TABULAR  STATEMENT  NO.  3—Continued. 


1906 

First 

Name  Length 

Harry  Coulby  . 569 

Harvey  D,  Goulder .  545 

J,  P.  Morgan  .  600 

Henry  B,  Smith  .  545 

Sir  Thomas  Shaughnessy  .  500 

E.  J.  Earling .  545 

Chas.  Weston  .  569 

Henry  H.  Rogers  .  600 

J.  Q.  Riddle  .  552 

A.  Y.  Townsend  .  602 

Norman  B.  Ream  .  600 

D.  R.  Hanna  .  552 

Peter  A.  B.  Widener  .  600 

D.  J.  Morrell  .  602 

Samuel  Mather  .  550 

Wm,  P.  Snyder  .  550 

James  Laughlin  .  550 

Michigan  .  550 

Ishpening  .  550 

J.  H.  Sheadle  . 550 

J.  H.  Bartow  .  524 

Pendennis  White  . i . 

Wm.  G.  Pollock . . 

Joshua  Rhodes  . 

Wm.  E.  Fitzgerald  . ; . . 

James  S.  Dunham  . 

E.  L.  Wallace  . . . . ; . . 

Siera . . 


Class'*' 

Capacity 

10500 

10000 

12000 

10000 

8000 

10000 

10500 

12000 

10000 

12000 

12000 

10000 

12000 

12000 

10000 

10000 

10000 

10000 

10000 

10000 

9000 


Second  Class** 
Length  Capacity 


Total  . 

323,000 

1907 

Sheldon  Parks  . 

.  552 

10000 

Gen.  Garretson  . 

.  540 

10000 

Mathew  Andrews  . 

.  552 

10000 

Hugh  Kennedy  . 

.  552 

10000 

Thomas  Lynch  . 

.  600 

12000 

H.  P.  McIntosh  . 

.  540 

10000 

Henry  Phipps  . 

.  600 

12000 

Geo.  F.  Baker . 

.  600 

12000 

Charles  O.  Jenkins . 

.  524 

9000 

Jas.  C.  Morse . 

.  552 

10000 

Ward  Ames . 

.  552 

10000 

J.  J.  Sullivan  . . . .  . 

.  552 

lOOOO 

H.  P.  Bope  . 

.  552 

10000 

Thos.  F.  Cole  . 

.  605 

12000 

D.  O.  Mills  . 

.  552 

10000 

Wilpen  . 

. .  574 

11000 

Milinokett . 

.  524 

9000 

John  J.  Boland . 

8000 

Josiah  G.  Munro  . 

10000 

Jacob  T.  Kopp . 

8000 

John  Dunn,  Jr . 

.  524 

9000 

30 

436 

440 

440 

440 

440 

445 

458 


6200 

6500 

6500 

6500 

6500 

6700 

6800 


45,700 


TABULAR  STATEMENT  NO.  3— Continued. 


1907 


First  Class* 

Second  Class** 

Name 

Length 

Capacity 

Length 

Capacity 

Hemlock  . 

440 

6500 

Odonah  . 

440 

6500 

Calumet  . 

440. 

6500 

Crete  . 

440 

6500 

Edwin  N.  Ohl . 

440 

6500 

Verona  . 

440 

6500 

Adriatic . 

440 

6500 

Elba  . 

440 

6500 

Wm.  B.  Davock  . 

460 

6800 

Chas.  Hubbard  . 

440 

6500 

Smith  Thompson  . 

458 

6800 

Total  . 

212,000 

72,100 

1908 

M.  A.  Bradley  . 

.  480 

7500 

Thomas  Barium  . 

.  500 

8000 

Caldera  . 

.  524 

9000 

B.  F.  Berry  . 

.  569 

10500 

J.  E.  Upson  . 

.  524 

9000 

A.  W.  Thompson  . 

.  524 

9000 

A.  E.  Nettleton  . 

.  545 

10000 

Wm.  H.  Wolff  . 

.  524 

9000 

Howard  M.  Hanna,  Jr . 

.  500 

8000 

Harry  A.  Berwind . 

10000 

Wm.  Livingstone  . 

. *557 

10000 

Tames  Corrignan  . 

.  550 

10000 

Daniel  B.  Meacham  . 

.  550 

10000 

Fred  G.  FI  art  well  . 

.  524 

9000 

Chas.  W.  Kotcher  . 

440 

6500 

Wainwright  . 

440 

6500 

J.  H.  Brown  . 

452 

6700 

John  A.  McGean . 

440 

6500 

Wm.  H.  Truesdale . 

452 

6700 

Rufus  P.  Ranney  . 

.440 

6500 

T.  F.  Durstein  . 

452 

6700 

Honduras  . 

256 

2800 

Normania  . 

440 

6500 

Adam  E.  Cornelius . 

440 

6500 

Total  . 

129,000 

61,900 

1909 

Alva  C.  Dinkey  . 

.  600 

12000 

Eugene  J.  Buffington  . 

.  600 

12000 

LaBelle  . 

.  524 

9000 

John  J.  Barium  . 

.  524 

9000 

Lsaac  M.  Scott  . 

.  524 

9000 

G.  A.  Tomlinson  . 

.  524 

9000 

T.  S.  Ashley  . . 

.  524 

9000 

Shenango  . 

.  607 

12000 

Wrh.  B.  Dickson  . 

.  605 

12000 

Theodore  H.  Wickwire . 

464 

6800 

Elpena  . 

374 

5000 

Andrew  S.  Upson  . 

400 

5500 

Benjamin  Nobel . 

256 

2800 

Clifford  F.  Moll  . 

464 

6800 

Denmark  . 

460 

6700 

Total  . 

93,000 

33,600 

31 


TABULAR  STATEMENT  NO.  3— Continued. 

1910 


First  Class* 

Second  Class** 

Name 

Length 

Capacity 

Length 

Capacity 

Wm.  B.  Schiller  . 

.  600 

12000 

John  P.  Morgan,  Jr . 

. .  600 

12000 

A.  A.  Augustus  . 

.  524 

9000 

Leonard  B.  Miller . 

.  524 

9000 

John  P.  Reiss  . . 

.  524 

9000 

John  B,  Cowle  . 

. .  545 

lOOOO 

Chas.  B,  Hutchinson . 

.  524 

9000 

Joseph  Wood  . 

.  524 

9000 

A.  M.  Bvers . 

.  524 

9000 

Peter  Reiss  . 

.  524 

9000 

Chas.  S.  Price  . 

.  524 

9000 

E.  H.  Utley  . 

.  524 

9000 

Harry  E.  Yates  . 

. .  550 

10000 

Theo.  Wickwire,  Jr . 

.  550 

10000 

W.  J.  Olcott  . 

.  605 

12000 

Willis  L.  King  . 

. ‘600 

12000 

Norway  . 

.  524 

9000 

Ontario  . 

465 

6800 

Champlain  . 

465 

6800 

St.  Clair  . 

465 

6800 

Total  . 

168,000 

20,400 

1911 

Wm.  P.  Palmer  . 

.  600 

12000 

Wm.  C.  Agnew  . 

.  552 

10000 

Thos.  Walters . 

.  600 

12000 

Quincy  A.  Shaw . 

.  524 

9000 

The  Harvester  . 

. .  545 

10000 

Total  . 

53,000 

1912 

Col.  J.  M.  Schoonmaker  . 

.  617 

14000 

W.  J.  Snyder,  Jr . 

.  617 

14000 

Davidson,  Louis  R . 

.  524 

9500 

Farrell,  Jas.  A . 

.  600 

12000 

Total  . 

49,500 

32 


Tabular  Statement  No.  4  Showing  Data  Regarding  All  First  and  Second 
Class  Great  Lakes  American  Freight  Vessels  Constructed  Since  and 
Including  1900. 


Capacity 

Capacity 

Capacity 

Year 

1st  Class* 

2nd  Class** 

Total 

%  1st  Class 

%  2nd  Class 

Tons 

Tons 

Tons 

1900 

41,000 

121,600 

162,600 

25% 

75% 

1901 

126,400 

126,400 

100% 

1902 

134,600 

134,600 

100% 

1903 

187,100 

187,100 

100% 

1904 

18,000 

36,300 

54,300 

33% 

67% 

1905 

226,000 

5,500 

231,500 

97.6% 

2.4% 

1906 

323,000 

45,700 

368,700 

87.6% 

12.4% 

1907 

212,000 

72,100 

284,100 

74.6% 

25.4% 

1908 

129,000 

61,900 

190,900 

67.6% 

32.4% 

1909 

93,000 

33,600 

126,600 

73.5% 

26.5% 

1910 

168,000 

20,400 

188,400 

89.1% 

10.9% 

1911 

53,000 

53,000 

100% 

1912 

49,500 

49,500 

100% 

*lst  Class  includes  all  vessels  480  feet  or  over  in  length. 


**2nd  Class  includes  all  vessels  under  480  feet  in  length. 


33 


w 


4 


a 

I 


‘V  «:  v..  ,J-r<?-.  . 

■’4  .•  '  -  ■  .'*- 

-  -'■•.■*  M' 


1’: 


,  j**-' 

*  • ', 

>  ;'  ■ 


.  ^ . 
,  V 


V 

•^4- 


.4  ^ 


,T 

,'/■  *». 

;y:_c  ■  /. 

■i  ±  %■  ■ 


L\ 


-.1 

t' 


^t  i  P41 


'<} 


I:  ■;.. 


; ' 


/.• 


r  - 


*■■»  ■ 


.  V 

'■•  ■  >  V 


'  ‘  •  *  C  < 

:ri]: 


®-- 


.V. 


•< 


,  .’.r 


V. 


'■'*'•>-’•■  I- ' 

•  ’rtj  VVi* 

■•‘vv'.  ■;■ 

.  f  > 


■Vjt 


►. -'.S 

J" 


I 


'  '  '.'  ■■'■■  ■.  •  f'::t 

:s 


fX 


>s 


K- 

■M 


Vi. 


-••  V'. 


/f 


Tabular  Statement  No.  5  showing  the  Amount  Expended  by  the  Federal  Government  on  all  Coast  and  Gulf  Ports  Costing  over  One  Million  I^l^rs, 

Tonnage  of  Water-borne  Freight;  Value  of  Annual  Tonnage  of  Water-Borne  Freight;  Cost  of  Improvement;  Cost  of  ImprovemeiU  °  ,  T?Afpr^»nce 

Tonnage;  Ratio  of  Cost  of  Improvement  to  Value  of  Annual  Tonnage;  Cost  of  Maintenance;  Cost  of  Maintenance  per  Ton  of  Annual  hreight  ana  Keierei 


to  Chief  of  Engineers  Report  for  1912. 


Location  of  Project 


Annual  Tons 


Bayou  Plaquemine  and . 

Grand  River  &  Pigeon  Bayou,  La.,  801,419 

Galveston  Harbor,  Texas  .  3,793,273 

Galveston  Channel,  Texas .  3,111,884 

Aransas  Pass,  Texas  .  8,880 

Harbor  of  Sabine  Pass  &  Port  Arthur  Canal,  Tex.  2,443,962 

Portland  Harbor,  Me . 3,162,024 

Providence,  R.  I . 3,887,853 

Bridgeport  Harbor,  Conn .  1,007,147 

Bay  Ridge  &  Red  Hook  Channel,  N.  Y .  4,502,000 

Staten  Island  Sound,  N.  Y.  &  N.  J.  between  N.  Y. 

and  N.  J .  17,800,977 

Wilmington,  Del .  859,736 

Norfolk,  Va .  14,445,112 

Winyah  Bay,  S.  C .  314,503 

Charleston  Harbor,  S.  C .  1,163,732 

Savannah  Harbor,  Ga . .  2,954,814 

Brunswick  Harbor,  Ga .  704,252 

Fernandina  Harbor,  Fla.,  &  Cumberland  Sound..  511,133 

Hillsboro  Bay,  Fla .  1,637,676 

Pensacola  Harbor,  Fla . No  tonnage  given 

Mobile  Harbor,  Ala .  2,203.712 

Los  Angeles,  Cal .  1,720,711 


Oakland  Harbor,  Cal . 

Humboldt  Harbor  &  Bay,  Cal . 

Sacramento  &  Feathers  River,  Cal . 

Entrance  to  Coos  Bay  &  Harbor,  Oregon 
Gray  Harbor  &  Bar  Entrance,  Wash’ . 


3,796,683 

770,560 

505,285 

303,008 

710,840 


Cost  of  Imp. 

Ratio  of  Cost  of 

Cost  of  Mainte- 

Value  of 

Cost  of 

oer  ton  of  An- 

Imo.  to  value 

Maintenance 

nance  per  ton  of 

Vol. 

Page 

Remarks 

Annual  Tonnage 

Improvement 

Annual  Tonnage  Annual  Tonnage 

Annual  Tonnage 

7,893,634.00 

1,970,053.54 

$  2.46 

25% 

15,538.01 

$0.02 

1 

651 

Complete 

427,016,385.00 

11,533,000.00 

3.04 

3% 

19,358.02 

.05 

1 

688 

Complete 

1  i 

371,756,124.00 

1,520,000.00 

.48 

.4% 

101,015.23 

.03 

1 

690 

Incomplete 

863,000.00 

2,278,750.00 

253.22 

264% 

25,000.00 

.27 

1 

718 

Incomplete 

49,864,181.00 

5,076,550.00 

2.08 

10% 

25,958.68 

.01 

1 

735 

Incomplete 

96,751,740.00 

1,622736.49 

.51 

2% 

4,150.68 

.01 

1 

54 

Complete 

103,313,720.63 

2,47i;553.83 

.64 

2% 

•  • 

1 

120 

Incomplete 

42,043,640.99 

1,021,400.00 

1.01 

2% 

14,865.00 

.01 

1 

162 

Complete 

232,562,000.00 

2,500,000.00 

.55 

1% 

•  • 

1 

229 

Incomplete 

263,352,020.00 

1,059,937.36 

.06 

.4% 

96.11 

.. 

1 

258 

Complete 

68,674,051.00 

1,496,952.00 

1.74 

2% 

61,985.79 

.07 

1 

310 

Complete 

2,620,282.00 

.18 

•  •  • 

61.06 

•  • 

1 

390 

Complete 

5,322,569.00 

2,927,991.67 

9.31 

55% 

15,991.67 

.05 

1 

468 

Incomplete 

77,388,475.00 

5,031,650.00 

4.32 

6y2% 

•  • 

1 

479 

Incomplete 

246,678,077.00 

10,111,747.64 

3.42 

5% 

104,200.00 

.031^ 

1 

484 

Incomplete 

44,506,731.00 

1,349,900.00 

1.72 

3% 

24,993.59 

.03 

1 

510 

Complete 

10,113,836.00 

3,607,514.40 

7.07 

36% 

61,893,58 

.12 

1 

518 

Complete 

29,904,179.00 

1,790,180.13 

1.09 

6% 

20,000.00 

.01 

1 

554 

Incomplete 

22,375,026.00 

1,355,956.94 

•  •  • 

6% 

•  • 

1 

592 

Incomplete 

59,027,974.00 

6,981,630.60 

3.17 

12% 

7,095.40 

.002 

1 

607 

Incomplete 

77,704,843.00 

3,405,250.00 

Out  3.33 

7.5% 

•  • 

1 

1140 

Incomplete 

2,333,174.00 

In 

154,224,950.00 

3,963,803.00 

1.04 

2.5% 

•  • 

1 

1153 

Incomplete 

15,408,860.00 

2,855,671.06 

3.70 

19% 

•  • 

1 

1162 

Incomplete 

32,139,048.00 

1,092,000.00 

2.16 

3% 

25,000.00 

.05 

1 

1166 

Incomplete 

7,097,617.00 

1,375,750.00 

4.54 

19% 

5,000.00 

.02 

1 

1179 

Incomplete 

6,092,836.00 

2,660,000.00 

3.74 

43.6% 

354.16 

.004 

1 

1234 

Incomplete 

TOTAL  . 

Average  Federal  Cost 


.  73,127,176  2,452,075,516.00  86,013,434.66 

of  25  Salt  Water  Improvements  per  ton  of  annual  tonnage . 


1.18 


Tabular  Statement  No.  6  Showing  the  Amount  Expended  by  the  Federal  Government  in  all  River  Improvements  of  the  United  States  Costing  One  Million 
Dollars  or  over;  Annual  Tonnage  of  Water-borne  Freight;  Value  of  Annual  Tonnage  of  Water-borne  Freight;  Cost  of  Improvement;  Cost  of  Impr^ovement 
per  Ton  of  Annual  Tonnage;  Ratio  of  Cost  of  Improvement  to  Value  of  Annual  Tonnage;  Cost  of  Maintenance;  Cost  of  Maintenance  per  Ton  of  Annual 
Freight  and  Reference  to  Chief  of  Engineers  Report  for  1912. 


Location  of  Project  Annual  Tons  ,  r 

j  HiMiuai  Annual  Tannage 

Alabama  River,  Fla .  110,231  8,253,948.00 

Allegheny  River,  Pa .  1,374,626  . 

Arkansas  River,  Ark.,  from  mouth  to  mouth  of 

Grand  River .  81,371  1,085,018.00 

Big  Sandy  River,  W.  Va.  &  Ky .  181,770  1,436,375.00 

Canal  at  the  Cascades,  Col.  River,  Ore.,  4.5  miles.  41,778  3,034,315.00 

Cape  Fear  River  at  and  below  Wilmington .  1,063,908  58,933,962.00 

Chattahoochee  River,  Ga.,  &  Fla.,  Columbus  to 

Mouth,  139  mi .  117,115  15,784,029.00 

Columbia  River  between  foot  of  Dallas  Rapids  & 

head  of  Celilo  Falls,  Ore.  &  Wash .  67,019  2,586,245.00 

Columbia  River  98  mi.  &  lower  Wilamet  River 

below  Portland,  Ore .  8,000,914  83.157,608.00 

Columbia  River — mouth  of — Ore.  and  Wash .  2,449,297  52,104,230.00 

Coosa  River  between  Rome,  Ga.,  &  E.  Tenn .  40,840  558,492.00 

Cumberland  River,  Tenn.  &  Ky.,  below  Nashville, 

193  mi . 223,278  3,549,114.00 

Cumberland  River  above  Nashville  357  mi .  181,029  4,087,748.00 

Delaware  River— Philadelphia  to  sea  63  miles....  25,786,180  1,209,878,741.00 

Des  Moines  Rapids  Canal  &  Dry  Dock .  42,018 

Detroit  River,  Mich .  66,951,231  745,167,201.00 

East  River  &  Hell  Gate,  N.  Y .  45,331,216  . 

Fox  River,  Wis.,  289  mi .  170,313  736,617.00 

Harlem  River,  N.  Y .  11,751,632  570,494,993.00 

Houston  Ship  Channel,  Texas  .  1,354,897  34,721,530.00 

Hudson  River,  N.  Y .  4,241,478  92,100,313.00 

Illinois  River,  Ill.,  223  mi .  173,529  3,557,150.00 

III.  &  Mississippi  Canal,  Ill .  42,682  . 

James  River,  Va.,  mouth  of  river  103.8  miles  at 

Richmond  .  472,537  27,004.595.00 

Kanauha  River,  W.  Va .  1,392,788  4,512,758.29 

Kentucky  River,  Ky .  209,249  2,638,880.24 

Miss.  River  between  Ohio  &  Missouri  River .  369,295  20,776,266.00 

Mississippi  River  between  Missouri  River  &  Min¬ 
neapolis,  Minn.,  &  St.  Paul  .  2,081,566  38,928,961.00 

Mississippi  Riv.  bet.  St.  Paul  &  Minneapolis,  Minn.  40,000  200,000.00 

Mississippi  Riv. — Reservoirs  at  Headwaters  of...  675,000  3,000,000.00 

Missouri  Riv. — mouth  to  Kansas  City .  307,807  602,466.23 

Missouri  Riv.^ — Kansas  City  to  Ft.  Benton .  63,204  479,949.00 

Monongahela  River,  Pa .  10,747,041  . 

Muscle  Shoals  Canal,  Tenn.  Riv .  8,962  815,890.00 

Ohio  River  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  &  head  of  Louis¬ 
ville  and  Portland  Canal  .  1,243,050  . 

Ohio  River  Gen.  1000  miles .  12,046,294  82,074,878.77 

Osage  River,  Mo .  19,274  344,733.60 

Passaic  River,  N.  J .  2,266,291  62,216,589.00 

Patapsco  Riv.  &  Channel  to  Baltimore,  Md.  20  mi.  10,123,355  200,908,059.00 

Pascagoula  River,  Miss .  972,944  6,560,380.00 

Potomac  Riv. — Aqueduct  Bridge  to  Giesboro  Pt., 

D.  C.,  5  mi .  795,900  12,995,447.00 

Puget  Sound — Waterway  connecting  Puget  Sound 

with  Lake  Union  &  Washington,  Wash .  598,157  2,628,439.00 

Quachita  &  Black  River,  Ark.  &  La .  165,389  5,561,044.00 

Red  River  below  Fulton,  Ark .  171,946  4,512,487.00 

Saginaw  River,  Mich.,  26  mi . 236,636  2,342,254.00 

Ship  Channel  connecting  water  between  Chicago, 

Duluth  &  Buffalo  .  61,498,884  . 

St.  Johns  River,  Fla.,  from  mouth  to  Jacksonville.  1,790,498  56,865,789.00 

St.  Mary’s  River  at  Falls,  Mich .  53,477,216  595,019,844.00 

Tennessee  River,  Chattanooga  to  Riverton,  Ala., 

238  mi . •••••  208,420  3,876,063.00 

Yazoo  River — mouth  of — and  Llarbor  at  Vicks¬ 
burg,  Miss .  321,594  8,753,650.00 


total  .  331,017,738  4,034,847,052.13 


Average  Federal  Cost  of  50  river  improvements  per  ton  of  annual  tonnage 


Cost  of 

Cost  of  Imp. 
oer  ton  of  An- 

Ratio  of  Cost  of 
Imp.  to  value 

Maintenance 

Cost  of  Mainte¬ 
nance  per  ton  of 

Vol. 

Page 

Remarks 

Improvement 

1,064,000.00 

Annual  Tonnage  Annual  Tonnage 
$  9.67  13% 

25,000.00 

Annual  Tonnage 
$0.23 

1 

597 

Incgmplete 

2,012,657.33 

1.46 

1 

895 

Incomplete 

3.059,899.44 

37.77 

282% 

32,115.95 

.40 

1 

781 

Complete 

.1,701,700.47 

9.35 

118.5% 

1 

922 

Incomplete 

3,825,629.48 

91.09 

126% 

720.00 

.66 

1 

1198 

Incomplete 

5,528,228.92 

5.20 

9% 

75,000.00 

.07 

1 

458 

Incomplete 

1,037,930.78 

8.87 

6J4% 

52,000.00 

.044 

1 

583 

Incomplete 

3,150,000.00 

47.01 

122% 

1 

1194 

Incomplete 

3,105,135.47 

3.88 

4% 

129,602.39 

.016 

1 

1213 

Incomplete 

11,145,294.94 

4.55 

21% 

80,251.82 

.03 

1 

1218 

Incomplete 

1,802,583.20 

43.98 

323% 

11,868.51 

1 

600 

Incomplete 

1,688,000.00 

7.57 

47% 

2,885.68 

.01 

1 

860 

Incomplete 

3,312,500.00 

18.30 

81% 

1% 

5,185.36 

.03 

1 

863 

Complete 

17,216,534.86 

.67 

325,538.03 

.01 

1 

283 

Incomplete 

1,458,103.88 

34.71 

,  , 

1 

811 

Incomplete 

11,894,500.00 

.18 

1% 

,  . 

1 

1087 

Incomplete 

5,983.341.45 

.13 

1 

192 

Incomplete 

3,884,406.55 

22.85 

527% 

5,717.47 

.035 

1 

1001 

Incomplete 

1,838,000.00 

.16 

.3% 

1 

198 

Incomplete 

2,500,000.00 

1.85 

7% 

320,631.66 

.24 

1 

696 

Incomplete 

7,566,524.56 

1.78 

8% 

4,746.88 

.001 

1 

209 

Incomplete 

1,635,837.81 

9.40 

46% 

15,897.70 

.09 

1 

1020 

Complete 

7,521,746.46 

174.93 

188,111.37 

4.37 

1 

812 

Incomplete 

2.362,500.00 

5.00 

9% 

1 

403 

Incomplete 

4,295,863.14 

3.08 

28.5% 

198,878.68 

,  , 

1 

917 

Incomplete 

4,113,500.00 

19.68 

\S57o 

200,000.00 

.96 

1 

925 

Incomplete 

15,894,999.98 

43.07 

76% 

303,197.08 

.82 

1 

803 

Incomplete 

17,108,965.40 

8.22 

44% 

2,128.91 

.0009 

1 

807 

Incomplete 

1,916,600.00 

47.92 

958% 

1 

815 

Incomplete 

1,737,699.04 

2.57 

58% 

.  , 

1 

817 

Incomplete 

9,627.934.12 

31.26 

1599% 

81,215.71 

.26 

1 

835 

Incomplete 

5,325,504.65 

84.54 

1109% 

300,000.00 

4.76 

1 

841 

Incomplete 

6,006,678.88 

.56 

•  •  . 

,  , 

1 

890 

Incomplete 

1,266,764.08 

140.77 

155% 

13,576.50 

1.55 

1 

882 

Complete 

3,324,168.86 

$  2.67 

119,649.21 

.096 

1 

929 

Incomplete 

9,052,354.47 

.75 

11% 

15,279.91 

.001 

1 

883 

Incomplete 

1,035,000.00 

54.47 

300% 

23,924.12 

1.26 

1 

848 

Incomplete 

1,600,350.00 

.71 

2K^% 

5,000.00 

,  . 

1 

254 

Incomplete 

8,311,030.00 

.82 

4% 

28,764.65 

.002 

1 

330 

Incomplete 

1,029,417.60 

1.06 

16% 

54,624.96 

.06 

1 

626 

Incomplete 

3,388,500.00 

4.46 

26% 

24,269.88 

.03 

1 

364 

Incomplete 

1.280,000.00 

2.14 

48.7% 

5.078.91 

.008 

1 

1248 

Incomplete 

2.906,869.00 

17.61 

52% 

23,298.00 

.14 

1 

756 

Incomplete 

2,693.377.50 

15.08 

60% 

113,898.66 

.66 

1 

752 

Incomplete 

1,418,750.00 

6.00 

60% 

1 

1075 

Incomplete 

3,365,000.00 

4,743.24 

1 

1059 

Complete 

5,360,089.02 

2.99 

9% 

45,815.18 

.025 

1 

524 

Incomplete 

12,932,822.19 

.24 

2% 

1 

1061 

Incomplete 

7,085,842.11 

34.00 

177% 

9,521.47 

.05 

1 

870 

Incomplete 

1,253,000.00 

3.89 

14% 

10,215.40 

.001 

1 

768 

Complete 

2  39,626,145.14  1,048,578.82 

. $0.73 


Tabular  Statement  No.  7  Showing  Amount  Expended  by  the  Federal  r  t 

Freight;  Value  of  Annual  Tonnage  of  Water-borne  Freight;  Cost  of  Improvement;  Cost  of  Improvement  per  Ion 
Improvement  to  Value  of  Annual  Tonnage;  Cost  of  Maintenance;  Cost  of  Maintenance  per 
Report  for  1912. 


Government  in  Improving  Harbors  in  the  Great  Lakes;  Annual  Tonnage  of 

^  of  Annual  Tonnage;  Ratio  of  Cost  ot 

Ton  of  Annual  Freight  and  Reference  to  Chief  of  Engineers 


Location  of  Project 


Annual  Tons 


A-shland,  Wis .  3,568,149 


Ashtabula, 
Buffalo,  N 
5  Calumet 
(  Calumet 
Charlotte 


Ohio  .  13,062,023 

Y .  12,417,862 

Harbor,  Ill.,  11  mi.  ( .  6,607,996 

River,  Ill.  &  Ind.  j . 

Harbor,  N.  Y .  940,472 


Chicago  Harbor,  Ill .  4,025,576 

Chicago  River,  Ill.,  13.28  mi .  4,200,000 

Cleveland,  Ohio  .  10,949,760 

Conneaut,  Ohio  . 8,879,277 

Duluth  Harbor  Basin,  Minn .  30,672,846 

Dunkirk,  N.  Y . 

Erie,  Pa . . . 

Fairport  Harbor,  Ohio  . 

Frankfort  Harbor,  Mich . 

Grand  Haven  Harbor,  Mich . 

Great  Sodus  Bay,  N,  Y . 

Green  Bay,  Wis . ;••••. . 

Harbor  of  Refuge,  Grand  Maraic,  Mich . 

Holland  Harbor,  Mich . 

Huron  Harbor,  Ohio  . 

Kenosha,  Wis.  . . ^ . 

Keweenaw  Waterway,  Mich . 

Tuttle  Sodus  Bay,  N.  Y . 

T.orain  Harbor,  Ohio  . 

T.udington  Harbor,  Mich . 

Manistee  Harbor,  Mich . 

Manitowoc,  Wis . 

Marquette,  Mich . 

Michigan  City  Harbor  . 

Milwaukee  Harbor,  Wis.,  inc.  Harbor  of  Refuge. 

Muskegon  Harbor,  Mich . 

Oswego,  N.  . . 

Racine,  Wis . 

Sandusky,  Ohio  . . . 

Saugatuck  Harbor  and  Kalamazoo  River . 

Sheboygan,  Wis . . 

South  Haven  Harbor,  Mich . 

St.  Joseph’s  Harbor  &  River,  Mich . 

Sturgeon  Bay,  Wis . 

Toledo,  Ohio  . 

Two  Harbors.  Minn.,  or  Agate  Bay  . 


Value  of 
Annual  Tonnage 

12, 240,067. a) 
37,805,404.00 
314,397,264.00 


1,454.600.00 


59,873,364.00 
33,290.265.00 
236,056,373.00 
43.411.00 


Cost  of 
Improyement 

569,500.00 
2,094,256.36 
6,220,695.96 
J  1,597,230.00  ] 
[  1,272,221.44  j 
833,610.00 
3,611.005.00 
1,692.277.31 
7,624,666.77 
1,277,450.22 
7,313,203.69 


Cost  of  Imp. 
per  ton  of  An- 
Annual  Tonnage 
$  0.20 
.16 
.51 

.41 

.89 

.89 

.40 

.70 

.17 

.24 

181.66 


Ratio  of  Cost  of 
Imp.  to  value 
Annual  Tonnage 

5% 

5% 

2% 


34% 


15% 

4% 

3.1% 

2533% 


Cuyahoga  River  and  outer  harbor  tonnage  separated:- 

Cuyahoga  River  above  Cincinnati  Slip . 

Cuyahoga  River  below  Cincinnati  Slip  and  Lake 

Front  . . . 

Cuyahoga  River  above  Superior  Viaduct . 

Cuyahoga  Riv.  below  Superior  Via.  &  Lake  Front 

^Federal  cost  on  basis  of  City’s  offer  of  co-operation. 
JTonnage  for  the  navigation  season  of  1912. 


Maintenance 

1,150.00 
5.50 
5,726.08 
8,858.90  ] 

'  21,639.62  j 
33,882.99 
9,124.92 
7,240.59 
43,194.42 
680.00 
326,360.00 


3.464,836 

75.808,610.00 

1,532,882.28 

.44 

2% 

1,167.62 

1,455,699 

12,689,063.00 

1,206,316.15 

.83 

9% 

680.00 

756,505 

22,591,504.00 

502.475.44 

.66 

2% 

2,443.77 

641,816 

65,668,660.00 

1,068,943.07 

1.67 

2% 

31,475.24 

55,693 

169,495.00 

607,489.75 

10.84 

358% 

27,214.16 

751,326 

7,669,500.00 

602,130.89 

.80 

8% 

11,350.66 

13,600 

554,580.00 

535,723.32 

38.28 

96% 

6,014.54 

145,801 

23,194,270.00 

772,050.96 

5.29 

3% 

4,729.72 

1,257,724 

3,120,266.00 

561.800.00 

.45 

18% 

6,243.67 

80,731 

4,985,330.00 

564,969.42 

6.98 

11% 

2,049.18 

2,146,617 

78,861,611.00 

1,375,237.68 

.64 

1.7% 

97,876.00 

133,715 

582,132.00 

530.464.47 

3.95 

91% 

22,588.34 

6,454,267 

18,374,177.0X) 

1,218,284.37 

.19 

7% 

680.00 

1,865,272 

108,564,055.00 

1,582,128.71 

.85 

1% 

8,494.59 

320,820 

3,763.626.00 

665,000.00 

2.07 

18% 

4,366.64 

1,437,229 

65,723,230.00 

946,812.72 

.66 

1% 

4,048.85 

1,838,873 

8,649,960.00 

885,588.69 

.48 

10% 

8,943.03 

27,063 

1,824,338.92 

67.41 

.  ,  , 

32,849.32 

7,612,241 

119,653,735.00 

2,375,876.27 

.31 

2% 

5,258.08 

114,015 

6,339,136.00 

881.623.67 

7.74 

14% 

6,935.21 

869,965 

4,074,845.00 

2,662,089.64 

3.06 

65% 

83,760.64 

197,667 

6.855,400.00 

809,135.82 

4.08 

12% 

1,685.63 

2,279,318 

6,579,624.00 

1,297,192.00 

.57 

19% 

9,610.79 

16,562 

1,454,544.00 

500,939.00 

29.47 

34% 

6,354.85 

661,886 

8,299,425.00 

791,574.75 

1.20 

9%% 

15,822.55 

19,244 

1,269,423.00 

500,300.00 

26.31 

39% 

4,234.27 

183,163 

14,403,248.00 

920,445.53 

5.02 

6% 

16,309.19 

571,773 

13,074,061.00 

639.462.40 

1.12 

5% 

6,407,878 

19,017,281.00 

2,940,810.00 

.46 

15% 

23,110.09 

7,422,559 

23,547,459.00 

260.786.69 

.03 

1% 

14,871.00 

213,925 

2,085,200.00 

690,796.76 

3.23 

33% 

11,121.90 

141,476,254 

1,333,933,599.00 

59,559,736.46 

3,301,643$ 

*1,550,000.00 

*.47 

11,389,558$ 

7,624,666.77 

.68 

5,206.714$ 

58.504.0a).(X) 

M, 550, 000.00 

*.30 

9,484,487$ 

128,808,387.00 

7,624,66677 

.80 

Cost  of  Mainte¬ 
nance  per  ton  of 
Annual  Tonnage 
$0.0003 

.005 

.04 

.04 

.02 

.02 

.004 

.016 


.003 

.05 

.49 

.01 

.44 

.03 

.005 

.02 

.045 

.17 

.04 

.01 

.003 

.05 

1.22 

.’006 

.06 

.10 

.01 

.31 

.02 

79 

.09 

.003 

.002 

.05 


Voi.  Page 

1  957 

1  1106 
1  1115 

1  1011 
1  1013 

1  1127 

1  1005 

1  1008 
1  1101 
1  1108 
1  947 

1  1114 

1  1011 
1  1105 

1  1052 

1  1035 

1  1120 
1  979 

1  971 

1  1033 

1  1097 

1  998 

1  963 

1  1130 

1  1099 

1  1043 

1  1046 

1  988 

1  966 

1  1018 

1  993 

1  1038 

1  1132 

1  997 

1  1095 

1  1031 

1  991 

1  1028 

1  1025 

1  982 

1  1091 

1  945 

1  1000 


Remarks 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 

Complete 

Incomplete 

« 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 

Complete 


Complete 

Complete 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 

Complete 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 

Complete 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 

Incomplete 


Incomplete 

Complete 

Complete 


Tabular  Statement  No.  8  Showing 

From  1856*  to 


Year  Amount 

1856  . $  7,576.04 

1857  .  14,486,57 

1858  .  9,565.40 

1859  .  100.00 

1860  .  3,604.99 

1864  .  829.00 

1865  .  2,040.98 

1866  .  27,910.32 

1868  .  47,129.60 

1869  . 106,090.93 

1870  .  14,448.25 

1871  .  13,248.00 

1872  .  19,115.40 

1873  . 40,669.75 

1874  .  20,749.48 

1875  .  21,322.35 

1876  .  96,487.11 

1877  .  86.636.09 

1878  .  74,262.08 

1879  .  39,161.20 

1880  .  44,527.67 

1881  . 56,766.57 

1882  .  31,974.78 

1883  .  35,475.28 

1884  .  38,544.67 

1885  .  26,000.51 

1886  .  24,195.61 


*Fignres  for  the  years  1861-2-3 


Cost  of  Dredging  Cuyahoga  River 
1912  Inclusive. 


Year  Amount 

1887  . $15,710.17 

1888  .  23,724.99 

1889  .  33,543.97 

1890  .  26,627.64 

1891  .  16,178.66 

1892  .  25,167.63 

1893  .  23,008.12 

1894  .  17,602.78 

1895  .  23,737.14 

1896  .  39,953.35 

1897  .  25,150.47 

1898  .  25,871.46 

1899  .  33,041.55 

1900  .  48,783.68 

1901  .  31,799.81 

1902  .  27,420.05 

1903  .  26,726.08 

1904  .  43,616.28 

1905  .  65,414.64 

1906  .  36,869.95 

1907  .  54,653.28 

1908  .  60,023.14 

1909  .  64,742.62 

1910  .  92,099.37 

1911  .  37,280.90 

1912  . 40,483.98 


Total  . $1,862,150.34 


and  7  are  missing. 


I 


37 


Tabular  Statement  No.  9  Showing  Cost  of  Cuyahoga  River  Improve¬ 
ments  from  1896  to  1912  Inclusive. 


Year 

Widening  and  Dock  and  bulk- 

Land  for 

Miscellaneous 

Extensions 

head  construction  Widening 

1896  , 

. $ 

$ 

$  30,000.00 

$ 

1897 

.  44,424.64 

15,000.75 

414,079.60 

1,873.45 

1898  . 

.  7,254.47 

1899 

.  37,754.91 

9,399.84 

86,598.36 

6,873.45 

1900  , 

.  23,760.81 

32,307.03 

122,000.00 

9,914.72 

1901 

.  47,674.01 

31,399.40 

6,613.75 

11,233.89 

1902 

.  39,479.96 

•  1,601.63 

55,750.00 

16,288.38 

1903 

.  11,105.93 

31,023.14 

8,652.04 

1904  , 

.  2,555.73 

28,448.08 

16,000.00 

11,435.75 

1905 

.  113,946.22 

10,265.62 

3,042.91 

1906 

.  62,354.52 

17,319.46 

2,919.55 

1907 

1,091.85 

580.20 

1908 

925.90 

1909 

15,775.88 

1910 

11,871.55 

1911 

14,435.46 

7,816.96 

1912 

13,568.84 

$390,311.19 

$177,856.80 

$745,477.17 

$122,773.47 

SUMMARY 

Total  cost  of  dredging  as  shown  by  Tabular 

State  No.  8 . . 

_ $1,862,150.34 

Total 

cost  of  widening  and 

extensions  . 

_  390,311.19 

Total 

cost  of  dock  and  bulkhead  construction 

_  177,856.80 

Total 

cost  of  land  for  widening  . . 

_  745,477.17 

Total 

cost  of  miscellaneous 

items  . 

_  122,733.47 

Total  estimated  cost  of  land  for  widen  ing  at 

L.  S.  &  M.  S. 

Ry. 

bridge,  all  of  which  has  been  secured 

through  exchange 

agreements  . 

_  246,500.00 

Grand  Total 


$3.54r),()2S.97 


38 


Tabular  Statement  No.  10  Showing  the  Length  and  Capacity 
portation  Rates;  and  Iron  Ore  Unloading  Charges,  from 


Length  of 

Capacity  of 

Average  Iron 

Duluth  to 

Marquette  to 

Year 

Largest  Vessel 

Largest  Vessel 

Ore  Cargoes 

Lake  Erie 

Lake  Erie 

1900 

498 

feet 

8,300 

3,783 

1.00 

.95 

1901 

450 

4  4 

7,000 

4,459 

.80 

.70 

1902 

436 

4( 

7,000 

4,899 

.75 

.65 

1903 

469 

U 

7,300 

5,668 

.85 

.75 

1904 

560 

10,500 

5,272 

.70 

.60 

1905 

569 

i  4 

10,800 

6,101 

.75 

.70 

1906 

602 

4( 

12,500 

6,973 

.75 

.70 

1907 

605 

u 

12,000 

7,516 

.75 

.70 

1908 

500 

it 

8,900 

8,325 

.65 

.60 

1909 

605 

i4 

11,500 

7,777 

.65 

.60 

1910 

604 

ii 

12,000 

7,155 

.70 

.65 

1911 

600 

n 

12,000 

7,178 

.60 

.55 

1912 

617 

4  i 

14,000 

7,740 

.50 

.45 

of  the  Largest  Bulk  Freight  Vessels;  Average  Iron  Ore  Cargoes;  Iron 
1900  to  1912  Inclusive. 

r - Contract  Iron  Ore  Rates - ' 

Escanaba  to  Escanaba  to  Unloading 
Lake  Erie  Lake  Michigan  Charges 


Ore  and  Coal  Lake  Trans- 


.85 

.60 

.55 

.65 

.55 

.60 

.60 

.60 

.50 

.50 

.55 

.45 

.35 


.45 
.4214 
.4214 
.55 
.45 
.50 
.50 
.50 
.45 
.45 
.50 
.40 
.30 


.20 

.19 

.19 

.21 

.19 

.20 

.20 

.20 

.20 

.20 

.15 

.15 

.10 


Contract 

Lake  Erie 
to  Duluth 

.50 

.35 

.35 

.40 

.35 

.30 

.30 

.30 

.30 

.30 

.30 

.30 

.30 


Coal  Rates 

Lake  Erie  to 
Lake  Michigan 
.60 
.50 
.45 
.50 
.45 
.40 
.40 
.40 
.40 
.37 
.35 
.30 
.30 


Photograph  of  Collision  Bend  (taken  March  25th,  1913  from  Position  I  on  attached  map)  showing  water  within  about  1  foot  of  its  greatest  flood  height  (maximum  flood  height  at  this  location- 13  feet  and  6  inches  above  normal.) 

Steamer  "Neptune"  with  stem  line  broken.  Steamer  "Wm.  Henry  Mack"  lodged  against  West  3rd  Street  Bridge  No.  1 


#J 


Steamer  Mariska,  Length  302  feet,  carrying;.capacity  3  I  00  tons. 


B.  &  O.  Ry.  Tracks 


Photograph  of  Collission  Bend  (taken  July  1st  from  Position  I  on  attached  map>  showing  water  at  normal  stage. 


Photograph  of  portion  of  the  upper  Cuyahoga  Valley  (taken  March  26,  1913,  from  position  J  on  the  attached  map)  after  water  had  subsided  about  two  feet.  Maximum  flood  height  at  this  location  about  21  feet  above  normal. 

Clark  Ave.  over  B.  &  R.  R. 


Photograph  of  portion  of  the  upper  Cuyahoga  Valley  (taken  July  3,  1913,  from  position  J  on  the  attached 

Clark  Avenue  over  B.  &  O.  Ry. 


map. 


ERIE 


PE  N  N  A  .  R  .  p 


□  □□ 
□  □□ 


fsup 


CUYAHOGA  RIVER 

FROM 

Lake  Erie  To  Denisor?  Harvord 

Viad  uct. 


!  ; -.w  ■  '■p. 


